Q1

[tara_amber1]

This is a primary purpose question, as clearly stated in the question.
Correct Answer: (D)

In the beginning of the first paragraph, the traditional firefighting system is argued against by foresters and ecologists for it's detrimental effects on the forest ecosystems. The author sides with the foresters and ecologists and it's apparent in the following paragraphs. The negative consequences of the traditional firefighting system is explained, an alternative to this is presented by example of natural fires, and an element to carry out that alternative is stated.

(A) We aren't exactly told what's "impeding the enactment" of the alternative the author's rooting for. We're just told how it can be used and why it is better.

(B) Almost chose this one. This is wrong because the primary purpose is that one policy is better than the other. We're not just comparing the effects.

(C) Eliminate for the mention of money. There wasn't any mention in the passage.

(D) This is the correct answer. The author recommends this alternative change because the traditional firefighting method was doing more harm than good.

(E) Contradictory goals that are compatible? Nope, we're saying one is better than the other and that the former needs to be implemented.

Hope this helps!

[seychelles1718]

Can someone please correct my reasoning?

I think the reason why E is wrong is that E doesn't fit the task demanded by the Q stem, not because there's something wrong with the part that says "contradictory goals of a policy..." In fact, I think the policy the author recommends does have two SEEMINGLY contradictory goals: 1. allow low-intensity burns 2. reduce the devastating effects of forest fires.
In my opinion, the author's policy does have SEEMINGLY contradictory goals (which means they are actually NOT contradictory) because it is basically saying "ALLOW some fires in order to PREVENT big, devastating fires."
So I think E is wrong because the author's primary purpose of writing this passage isn't just to say those two goals are actually compatible. Rather, he presents a problem and suggests a solution (D).

[ohthatpatrick]

I think you did a great job of giving (E) its most charitable reading while STILL finding legitimate reason to eliminate it.

But I think what you named as the two goals sounds like a stretch to me.

The goal of any fire-control policy is to limit the damage done by huge fires.

"Allowing low intensity burns" is actually a means to that end, a method of trying to achieve that goal.

[KenM242]

Isn't it unfair that (E) contains the word 'eliminate' and is still the correct answer? According to the passage you let small fires take place in order to 'reduce' the fuel, not 'ELIMINATE' them. Sometimes we are required to catch these little things to avoid incorrectly circling them, and yet, in this case we were supposed to tolerate it because (A) (B) (C) (D) is wrong?