Using Fire to Keep a Prairie Healthy

2026 Practice Tests (digital)

2026 Practice Test B English · Question 33 of 51

Also in 2025 Practice Test B English, question 37.

Passage Using Fire to Keep a Prairie Healthy

Using Fire to Keep a Prairie Healthy

Inside the 40,000-acre Joseph H. Williams Tallgrass Prairie Preserve in northern Oklahoma, herds of bison roam on the scenic land that is home to hundreds of different species of plants and animals. While one of the greatest threats to the prairie is wildfire, the use of controlled fires is actually an effective way to protect this idyllic landscape.

Fires that are started by lightning or other natural circumstances are inevitable, and the results can be disastrous. However, hundreds of years ago the American Indian people who inhabited the Great Plains area between Minnesota and Texas realized that these fires could also be helpful. The bison in the area seemed to prefer grazing on tender new grass on the recently burned land rather than on grass in the unburned areas. The American Indian people began to deliberately burn areas of land for bison to graze on, which enticed the herds away from the people’s crops.

Today conservationists at the Tallgrass Prairie Preserve and farmers in the Great Plains continue to use controlled burns for land management. Intentionally burning a portion of land can dramatically improve the quality of the vegetation that regrows there. The fires burn away weedy undergrowth and help limit the overcrowding of shrubs and trees in the burn area, creating less competition for water and nutrients. Additionally, the process of burning excess plant matter adds nitrogen, an essential element for plant growth, to the soil.

One common target of controlled burns at the preserve and the surrounding area is the invasive red cedar tree. A single red cedar tree can consume up to 40 gallons of water per day, taking this vital resource away from other plant life. These tall trees also cast shade that prevents sunlight from reaching the plants beneath them. The fast-growing red cedar trees tend to crowd out prairie grasses, the primary food source for wild and domestic animals that make the prairie their home. An imbalance in one component of the prairie’s ecosystem affects the entire web of life. Controlled burns help maintain this ecosystem’s delicate balance.

Of course, these controlled fires are intended to burn only a portion of an area. A total burn, which is a risk with an uncontrolled wildfire, would destroy all wildlife as well as the crops farmers plant for income. The key to using controlled fires is knowing which areas of land to burn and when. Conservation experts at the preserve employ the “patch-burn” approach, meaning they rotate which portion of land is burned each year. They study the land to find out which areas would most benefit from being burned, and then they arrange about a dozen burns over one-third of the land. This patch burning contains the fire within a specific area and allows animals in the burn area to safely relocate. The following year, conservationists will burn a different section of the preserve, while the land burned the previous year regrows healthier than before.

Researchers have tracked and studied the variety of plant species and animals that live on the preserve, and their studies show that the patch-burn approach has restored biodiversity to the area by promoting the growth of species that were at risk of being crowded out. The patch-burn system is so successful that the conservationists at the preserve provide training to prairie farmers about conducting controlled burns on their own land. Burning land to make it healthy may seem counterintuitive, but strategic controlled fires have helped the prairie sustain life for hundreds of years and, with careful management, will continue to do so.

Boxed diagram titled “OVERVIEW OF THE PATCH-BURN METHOD,” introduced by the text “By using a patch-burn method, conservationists and farmers can reduce the risk of unintentional fires and control where grazing animals, such as bison, roam.” Below it, a map of one stretch of land is divided by a branching stream, labeled Stream, into three shaded areas: a dark Unburned Area across the top, a medium gray Previously Burned Area on the left, and a light gray Recently Burned Area on the lower right, where eight bison stand. Three captions under the map read “The unburned area is overrun with weeds and has the greatest risk of catching fire,” “The previously burned area is cleared of weeds, and young trees and crops grow freely and thrive,” and “The recently burned area has been cleared of all plants. Bison prefer to eat the fresh grass that will begin to grow in the recently burned area, and they will generally remain in that area until newer, fresher grass is available elsewhere.”

Question

Read this sentence from paragraph 6.

Burning land to make it healthy may seem counterintuitive, but strategic controlled fires have helped the prairie sustain life for hundreds of years and, with careful management, will continue to do so.

The words “counterintuitive” and “strategic” in the sentence convey the idea that

  • Athe safest methods are sometimes the least effective at solving complex challenges.
  • Bthorough investigation of uncommon methodologies can lead to beneficial results.
  • Cdetailed planning can ensure that a potentially destructive action has a positive impact.
  • Dplans that entail a certain amount of risk almost always result in success.
Show the answer

Correct answer: C

The question asks which idea the words “counterintuitive” and “strategic” convey in the last sentence in paragraph 6 in the passage.

A. Incorrect. Though the author states in paragraph 6 that conservationists have used safe and “strategic” methods, those methods have not been ineffective, since “the patch-burn system is so successful that the conservationists at the preserve provide training to prairie farmers about conducting controlled burns on their own land” (paragraph 6). Therefore, the words “counterintuitive” and “strategic” in the last sentence of paragraph 6 do not convey the idea that the safest methods are sometimes the least effective at solving complex challenges.

B. Incorrect. Although the author points out in paragraph 6 that researchers’ studies have shown “that the patch-burn approach has restored biodiversity to the area by promoting the growth of species that were at risk of being crowded out,” the author does not suggest that the methodologies conservationists used to conduct the patch burns are uncommon, since the methods were used by “the American Indian people [who] began to deliberately burn areas of land for bison to graze on” (paragraph 2). Therefore, the words “counterintuitive” and “strategic” in the last sentence of paragraph 6 do not convey the idea that thorough investigation of uncommon methodologies can lead to beneficial results.

C. CORRECT. In paragraph 1, the author states that “one of the greatest threats to the prairie is wildfire,” so the idea of conducting controlled burns suggests risk and runs “counter,” or contrary, to people’s common expectations, or “intuition,” about the dangers of fires. Thus, the words “counterintuitive” and “strategic” in the last sentence of paragraph 6 convey the idea that detailed planning can ensure that a potentially destructive action has a positive impact.

D. Incorrect. The author states in paragraph 6 that “the patch-burn system is so successful that the conservationists at the preserve provide training to prairie farmers.” This statement supports the idea of the action being “strategic” in order to achieve success. However, the statement does not suggest that because the process is “counterintuitive,” or unexpected, it involves a certain amount of risk to achieve that success. Therefore, the words “counterintuitive” and “strategic” in the last sentence of paragraph 6 do not convey the idea that plans that entail a certain amount of risk almost always result in success.

Question analysis

This vocabulary question takes the last sentence of the prairie article, which says burning land to make it healthy may seem counterintuitive, and asks what the words “counterintuitive” and “strategic” convey together. Students need the meaning of a hard word built from a prefix, then must match the pair to a general statement, and the choices are worded abstractly.

NYS standards
  • 7R4 word meaning and choice
  • 7L4b Greek and Latin affixes and roots
Grade level
Grade 8 reading and task
Compared with grade 7
Above grade 7 A typical grade 7 vocabulary question asks what one word means in context. This one pairs a hard word, “counterintuitive,” with “strategic” and asks for the idea they express together, with four abstract general statements to weigh.
Estimated difficulty
Hard: combines ideas, needs a plan, and has more than one tempting wrong answer.
What makes it hard
Evidence
Answered from one sentence or line
Reading level
Passage: about grade 11, 598 words; question and choices: about grade 11, 97 words.
Students, last 30 days
Not enough answers yet to show (it takes 10).
Why it is hard, traps and wrong answers (shows the answer)

Why it is hard

Students first need the meaning of “counterintuitive,” then must see what it says here: that burning land to heal it seems backward because fire destroys. “Strategic” supplies the other half, careful planning. The most tempting wrong answer gets the planning right but misreads the first word as “uncommon,” and others turn the pair into a rule about risk or a warning about safe methods. The question rewards translating each word before reading the abstract choices.

  1. A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer

    The choice about “thorough investigation of uncommon methodologies” follows the key’s pattern, planning that leads to a good result, and differs only in calling the method uncommon instead of potentially destructive. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)

  2. Hard words moderate Understanding the question

    “Counterintuitive,” contrary to what one would expect, is an uncommon word, and the choices add “methodologies” and “entail,” so the options are as hard to read as the sentence. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)

  3. Combines ideas minor Working it out

    The two words point different ways, one to burning that seems harmful and one to careful planning, and the answer must join both into a single general statement. (Embretson, 1998; Daniel & Embretson, 2010)

Strategy: Break “counterintuitive” into its parts, counter and intuitive, decide what each of the two words says about burning land, then find the statement that joins both meanings without adding claims of its own.

Traps

  • Half right: One half of a two-part choice is right and the other is not.
  • Too broad or too strong: A choice overstates, generalizes, or uses absolute words the text does not support.
  • Twists what the text says: Uses the text's topic and ideas but changes what it says: who did it, how much, when, or why.

The wrong answers, classified

How the questions are analyzed, and the research behind it

Working it out, step by step

  1. Figure out what the question asks

    This question asks about two words in the last sentence: “counterintuitive” and “strategic.” You need the idea the two words give together. So first figure out what each word means here.

  2. Break down “counterintuitive”

    Counter means against. Intuitive means what you would naturally expect. So counterintuitive means the opposite of what you would expect. The sentence says “Burning land to make it healthy may seem counterintuitive.” Fire usually destroys things. So burning land to help it seems backward. Paragraph 1 even calls wildfire “one of the greatest threats to the prairie.”

  3. Figure out “strategic”

    Strategic means carefully planned to reach a goal. Paragraph 5 shows that planning. The experts “study the land to find out which areas would most benefit from being burned.” Then they burn only part of the land each year. Put the two words together. Fire seems harmful, but careful planning makes it helpful.

  4. Check each choice

    • A is wrong. The sentence doesn’t say safe methods fail. It praises a method that works.
    • B is wrong. It treats counterintuitive as if it meant uncommon. But burning isn’t new. Paragraph 2 says people did it “hundreds of years ago.”
    • C is right. Strategic matches detailed planning. Counterintuitive matches an action that could destroy, fire, which turns out to help.
    • D is wrong. “Almost always” is far too strong. The sentence is about prairie fires, not all risky plans.

    Watch out: B gets strategic right, since the experts study the land. But counterintuitive doesn’t mean uncommon. It means against what you would expect.

  5. Choose the answer

    Fire seems destructive, but a careful plan makes it helpful. So the answer is C: “detailed planning can ensure that a potentially destructive action has a positive impact.”

Why this answer and not the closest wrong one

B is the closest wrong answer, because its first part, careful study, fits strategic. But its second part calls the method uncommon, and people have burned the prairie for hundreds of years. C fits both words: careful planning, and an action that seems harmful but helps.

The original DOE question

Question 33 as shown on the DOE’s digital test, page 46 of its printable version.
As printed in the DOE’s printable version of 2026 Practice Test B English, page 46, question 33.
The passage “Using Fire to Keep a Prairie Healthy” as printed (page 41)The passage “Using Fire to Keep a Prairie Healthy” as printed on page 41 of the DOE handbook.