Write an argument for or against the idea of using controlled fires to protect wild areas.

MIn 160 words. pls dont answer just for points

I am against the idea of using controlled fires to protect wild areas.

Although some people may say, "Using controlled fires to burn wild areas protect larger wildfires from happening," and that, "The humans are being protected,"; they don't seem to care about the animals that rely on the trees, and the grass, and the flowers, etc;. All they care about is protecting themselves, and that the animals will just simply find another place to live.

Humans should compare animals to themselves—we are animals after all!—and not just think that the animal world is another version of a fairy tale. When humans think that animals will easily find another place to live, they should think about themselves and think, "Wait a minute! It's so hard for me to get another home, with all the papers, contracts, loans, payments, etc;! Why do I think that it'll be easier for animals!"

In conclusion, although using controlled fires to protect wild areas are great for humans, we should judge what we do on how an animal would feel or react in that situation. Yes, sometimes we must use controlled fires, but remember that animals have a symbiotic relationship with us and that to take something, we must give something.

citizens are given 25 years of life to prove their worth to society; if they fail to do great things

b is the answer for this question.