Question

Passage A
For decades, forest managers and the general public viewed wildfires as purely destructive events that threatened wildlife, ruined pristine timberlands, and disrupted local ecosystems. Prior to this change in perspective, fire suppression was the standard policy, resulting in the immediate containment of any naturally occurring blaze. When a high-intensity blaze sweeps through a forest, it consumes undergrowth and mature canopy trees alike, leaving behind a charred, desolate landscape that appears completely devoid of life. Immediately following a fire, populations of small mammals, insects, and nesting birds are forced to flee their habitats, and the sudden loss of vegetative cover exposes the fragile topsoil to severe erosion from rain and wind, which can wash vital nutrients away into nearby streams.

However, modern ecologists have shifted this perspective, emphasizing the vital rejuvenating aspects of these natural disturbances. The burning of organic matter rapidly converts leaves, fallen branches, and decaying trees into ash, which is rich in essential nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. This nutrient-rich ash is quickly absorbed into the soil, creating a highly fertile seedbed for the next generation of plant species. Furthermore, by clearing out the thick understory and dense accumulation of dead forest debris, fires open up the forest floor to direct sunlight. This sudden abundance of solar energy stimulates the growth of dormant seeds and encourages a diverse array of pioneering grasses and wildflowers to colonize the area. Within a few growing seasons, the burned area often boasts a higher biodiversity of plant and insect life than it did before the fire occurred. Without these regular fire cycles, forests can become overcrowded and clogged with dead wood, which increases the risk of even more catastrophic, uncontrollable blazes. Consequently, the accumulation of dry brush created a dangerous situation, which ecologists now understand is counterproductive. Thus, the periodic clearance of undergrowth is essential for maintaining long-term forest health.

Passage B
Certain plant species have evolved such an intricate, co-dependent relationship with fire that their very survival depends on periodic burns. A prime example of this evolutionary adaptation is the jack pine (*Pinus banksiana*), a hardy coniferous tree common in the northern boreal forests of North America. Unlike most trees, which release their seeds annually as soon as they mature, the jack pine produces what are known as serotinous cones. These specialized cones are tightly sealed shut by a thick, sticky resin that protects the seeds inside from seed-eating animals and harsh winter weather. The resin is so durable that the cones can remain closed on the branches for years, keeping the seeds safely dormant.

Only the intense heat generated by a wildfire—typically reaching temperatures of at least $122^\circ\text{F}$ (or $50^\circ\text{C}$)—is capable of melting this resin barrier. Once the resin melts, the cone scales open, releasing thousands of seeds onto the ground below. When these seeds fall, they land on a forest floor that has just been cleared of competing vegetation and organic litter by the same fire. Because jack pine seedlings are highly intolerant of shade and require full, direct sunlight to grow, the open canopy created by the fire provides the ideal environmental conditions for their survival. In regions where wildfires have been strictly suppressed by human intervention for long periods, jack pine forests have steadily declined, as mature trees eventually die off without producing a new generation of seedlings. This decline demonstrates that eliminating fire from an ecosystem can have cascading effects on the plant communities that have adapted to its presence over millennia. Ecologists studying these pine barrens have concluded that fire suppression policies, though well-intentioned, ultimately disrupt the natural evolutionary cycle of fire-adapted species. By preventing small, natural fires, humans inadvertently threaten the existence of the very forests they seek to protect.

Based on both passages, the authors would most likely agree with which of the following claims about the policy of suppressing wildfires?