Also in 2025 Practice Test B English, question 34.
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.

Question
Read this sentence from paragraph 6.
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.
The author includes this sentence to show that
- Athe conservationists are better qualified to lead preservation efforts than farmers are.
- Bthe conservationists are eager to involve others in the preservation of the prairie.
- Cthe conservationists’ efforts will restore the original beauty and biodiversity of the region.
- Dthe conservationists’ training program should serve as a model for other conservation organizations.
Show the answer
Correct answer: B
The question asks what the author intends to show by using the second sentence in paragraph 6 in the passage.
A. Incorrect. Although the author refers to the conservationists as “experts” in paragraph 5 and states that conservationists “provide training to prairie farmers” (paragraph 6), the second sentence in paragraph 6 does not imply that the conservationists are better qualified to lead preservation efforts than farmers are. Instead, the sentence shows that conservationists believe that prairie farmers are capable of performing the controlled burns that contribute to overall conservation efforts.
B. CORRECT. The conservationists are eager to involve others in the preservation of the prairie, because “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” and that the process has “helped the prairie sustain life for hundreds of years” (paragraph 6). The second sentence in paragraph 6 describes how conservationists are sharing their knowledge about preservation techniques with people who live on the prairie.
C. Incorrect. Although the author points out in paragraph 6 that “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 idea that controlled burns may help restore the original biodiversity of the prairie is not the focus of the second sentence in paragraph 6, which notes only that conservationists are providing training to farmers about controlled burns.
D. Incorrect. The author mentions in paragraph 6 that the patch-burn system has been “successful” and suggests in the last sentence of the paragraph that the use of controlled burns will continue to benefit the prairie ecosystem. These details imply that this system will continue to be used and may even become more widespread. However, the second sentence in paragraph 6 merely describes a patch-burn training program that already exists and does not suggest that this program should serve as a model for other organizations.
Question analysis
This question quotes a sentence from the last paragraph of the prairie article, about the preserve's conservationists training farmers to run controlled burns on their own land, and asks why the author includes it. Students must work out what this one sentence contributes, and because every choice sounds like something a successful program might show, the test is whether the sentence itself supports it.
- NYS standards
- 7R5 structure and genre features
- Grade level
- Grade 7 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- At grade 7 Explaining why an author includes a sentence is everyday grade 7 work. The sentence is short and plainly worded, and the choices stay close to the passage's ideas, so each must be measured against what the sentence itself says.
- Estimated difficulty
- Moderate: several steps, or a close reading with one strong distractor.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 2, skills and concepts · mainly analyze
- What makes it hard
- How, not what moderate
- Reading between the lines moderate
- Evidence
- Answered from one sentence or line
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 11, 598 words; question and choices: about grade 11, 89 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
Every choice reads something into one plain sentence, so the decision is how far the sentence lets a reader go. Teaching farmers to burn their own land shows a wish to spread the work, which the right choice calls eagerness to involve others. The wrong choices go further: to a ranking of experts over farmers, to restoring the region’s original beauty, or to a model for other organizations, none of which the sentence states.
How, not what moderate Working it out
The stem asks why the author includes the training sentence, so students must say what it adds after the studies of restored biodiversity, not merely restate that farmers are trained. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)
Reading between the lines moderate Working it out
Nothing in the sentence calls the conservationists “eager”; that has to be read from their choosing to teach their method to farmers so that it spreads beyond the preserve. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)
Strategy: Restate the sentence in your own words, then ask what it adds to the paragraph's account of the patch-burn system's success, rejecting any choice that claims more than the sentence says.
Traps
- Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.
- Wrong part of the text: A choice is true of another paragraph, stanza or speaker than the one asked about.
- Too broad or too strong: A choice overstates, generalizes, or uses absolute words the text does not support.
The wrong answers, classified
A Reads too much in (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994)
Reads experts training farmers as a ranking of who should lead, though the sentence shows trust that farmers can run burns themselves, not a claim of superior qualifications.
C Wrong part of the text (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)
Draws on the sentence before, where studies show “the patch-burn approach has restored biodiversity,” and adds “original beauty,” though the training sentence itself is about sharing the method.
D Too broad or too strong (King et al., 2004)
Takes “so successful” as an endorsement and stretches one preserve’s training of local farmers into a model that other conservation organizations should follow, a recommendation the author never makes.
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
This question asks why the author put one sentence in the passage. The sentence says the patch-burn system works so well that the preserve’s experts train farmers. You need to decide what that sentence shows, and no more.
Read the sentence closely
The sentence says “the conservationists at the preserve provide training to prairie farmers about conducting controlled burns on their own land.” Conservationists are people who work to protect nature. Conducting means carrying out. So the experts teach farmers to do the burns themselves.
Decide what it shows
Why would experts teach their method to others? Because they want more people to help. Their method works, so they share it. Then the burns can happen on farms too, not only at the preserve. That shows they want others to join in protecting the prairie. Preservation means keeping something safe and healthy.
Check each choice
- A is wrong. Teaching farmers shows trust that farmers can do it. It doesn’t say experts should lead instead of farmers.
- B is right. Training farmers brings more people into caring for the prairie.
- C is wrong. Restored biodiversity comes from the sentence before. Biodiversity means many kinds of living things. This sentence is about sharing the method.
- D is wrong. The author never says other groups should copy this program.
Watch out: The words “so successful” make D sound right. But the sentence only says the preserve trains local farmers. It doesn’t call the program a model for others.
Choose the answer
The experts share their method so farmers can help too. So the answer is B: “the conservationists are eager to involve others in the preservation of the prairie.”
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
D is the closest wrong answer, because “so successful” sounds like high praise. But D adds an idea the sentence never states: that other groups should copy the program. B stays with what the sentence shows, experts teaching farmers so they can help.
More questions like this
The original DOE question

The passage “Using Fire to Keep a Prairie Healthy” as printed (page 41)
