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,

Both the reading and the professor are discussing "let it burn" policy. The reading passage claims that during the forest fires in yellowstone, the "let it burn" policy was expolited and caused three types of damage, so people decided to supplant this policy with another efficient policy. However, the lecturer finds all the ideas implausible and presents some evidence to refute them all and support the idea that none of the evidences mentioned in the passage can be considered possible damages of "let it burn" policy.

The reading passage holds the view that enormous damage to the park's trees and other plants caused by the yellowstone fires. almost one third of yellowstone's land had been barren and trees were blackened as a result of flames and smoke. the lecturer rejects the point made in the reading and brings up the idea that because of the fires, the plants become more diverse. in fact, the fires create opportunities for some kinds of plants. such as plants which need to grow in open space and plants which need to exposed to the high level of heat. as a result, this hypothesis seems to be really dubious.

Furthermore, the other hypothesis on which the passage relies is that fires adversely affect the animals as well. Large animals such as deer and elk and many smaller species were damaged. Besides destruction of habitats and food chains was a threat for the animal that survived the fire. On the contrary, the professor takes the opposite viewpoint and underlies the fact that as a result of the fires, animal's population recover and new opportunities was created for them. some animals such as rabbit and hairs started to thrive by take advantage of small plants which became available after the fires. so, certain food became stronger after the fires.

Finally the last reason from the author's ponit of view is that the value of the park as a tourist attraction decreased which adversely affected the local economy. the tourist season was reduced. because huge area of the park engulfed in flames. In contrast, the speaker dismiss this issue due to the fact that such fire has not seen after that. In other words, it just occured one time and didn't happened again. Therefore, tourists came back again and they visit the park each year after that. consequently, this claim does not posses a strong support inorder to be acceptable.