Which of the following statement is not a reason for banning bush burning? It

Analyze the question: The question uses "NOT", so we are looking for the one statement that is not a disadvantage of bush burning. In other words, it is the only effect that is not a reason to ban it.

Concept: Bush burning is banned because of its harmful effects on the environment:

• It kills soil microorganisms such as bacteria and fungi, which help decompose matter and recycle nutrients.
• It destroys humus and organic matter, so soil nutrients are lost.
• It leaves the soil bare, exposing it to erosion by wind and rain.
• It kills animals, destroys habitats, pollutes the air and can damage property.

Going through the options:

• A. Allows for quick regrowth of grasses: This is a (short-term) benefit, as fresh green shoots appear after the first rains. It is not a reason to ban burning, so it is the odd one out.
• B. Kills soil microorganisms: This is harmful, so it is a valid reason for the ban.
• C. Leaves the soil bare of vegetation: This is harmful because it leads to erosion, so it is a valid reason.
• D. Burns off organic soil nutrients: This is harmful because it reduces soil fertility, so it is a valid reason.

Answer: The statement that is NOT a reason for banning bush burning is A. It is the only effect that could be seen as positive.

Exam tip: When a question says "NOT" or "EXCEPT", first sort the options into two groups (harmful vs helpful). The one that does not fit with the rest is your answer. For bush burning, remember "kills, bares, burns" as the harmful effects, while "quick regrowth" is the single positive one.