Astudent is writing an argumentative essay about the idea of using controlled fires to protect wild areas. this student is going against the idea so far they have this written down : controlling fires to protect wild areas is a very slight possibility. therefore, controlling fires to protect wild areas should be prevented. the main reason for why people shouldn't use fires to protect wild areas is because we don't know for sure if the fire can be controlled. there's always a chance that the fire could go out of control and turn into a real raging fire that might be hard to put out. maybe it could turn into a disasterous wild fire. another reason for why people shouldn't use fires to protect wild areas is because the fires could easily damage not only crops and vegetation but animal life as well. what is a good ending claim for this introduction?