In the United States, it had been common practice since the late 1960s not to suppress natural forest fires. The “let it burn” policy assumed that forest fires would burn themselves out quickly, without causing much damage. However, in the summer of 1988,

The article is discussing about "let it burn" policy and its three possible damages and provides three reasons for support. However, the professor opposes the point made in reading and gives three reasons to support.

First, the article claims that the forest fire causes devastating damage to vegetation. However, the professor states that forest fire create new opportunities for other plants by making ground clear by removing other vegetation. for example, some berries and seeds. And plants species are become more diverse.

Secondly, the article states that due to forest fire, the wild life and food chain was affected. While the professor claims that fire replace some plants from the ground and these will creates good habitat for animals like rabbits and hares. Meanwhile, the predators who depend on these animals also come to that area and the food chain becomes much stronger than before.

Finally, the articles claims that the forest fire affect economy, as number of tourists avoid to come to that area, meanwhile local business also have to suffer. However, the professor explains that natural disasters like forest fire won't happened every year. It can be easily understood by example of Yellowstone fire in 1988. So the tourist can came back after or next year, and the economy won't get suffered.