supporting a logical argument\nwhich facts can be used to argue against controlled burns? check all that…

supporting a logical argument\nwhich facts can be used to argue against controlled burns? check all that apply.\nthe number of escaped fires seems to be trending up.\nwe do not know how many of the “success” burns might have been near misses.\nthe estimated number of prescribed burns is 4,000 to 5,000 per year.\nthe report does not say how destructive the escaped fires were, only how many there were.\nthe report admits that prescribed burns have elements of risk and uncertainty.\none percent of the burns cannot be proven successful.
Answer
Brief Explanations:
- An increasing trend of escaped fires shows potential danger of controlled burns.
- Near - misses among "success" burns imply higher risk than perceived.
- Lack of information on destructiveness of escaped fires is a concern.
- Acknowledgment of risk and uncertainty in prescribed burns is a negative factor.
- Failure to prove success of 1% of burns is also a drawback. The number of prescribed burns per year is a neutral fact and not an argument against controlled burns.
Answer:
- The number of escaped fires seems to be trending up.
- We do not know how many of the “success” burns might have been near misses.
- The report does not say how destructive the escaped fires were, only how many there were.
- The report admits that prescribed burns have elements of risk and uncertainty.
- One percent of the burns cannot be proven successful.