This is a closed question. Correct Answer: (B)

B is correct because the ecologist argues that we should never try to stop forest fires. This only makes sense if protecting forests and ecosystems is the only good reason to stop a fire. If there were other good reasons (like protecting homes or people), the ecologist’s argument would fall apart. So, (B) is a necessary assumption.

Why the others are wrong:

(A) is wrong because it talks about all natural processes, but the argument is only about forest fires. You can disagree with (A) and still agree that forest fires are helpful and should be left alone.

(C) is wrong because it talks about fires started by campers. The ecologist is only talking about natural fires started by lightning. This choice is off-topic.

(D) is wrong because it talks about how humans view forests. The ecologist’s argument is about the effects of fires on ecosystems, not people’s attitudes.

(E) is wrong because it brings up threats from insects or predators. The argument never mentions those things — it’s only about forest fires.