I hate these extreme thought puzzles. They try to simplify the problem by analogy and try to highlight the issues of the original problem through severe imagery

I hate these extreme thought puzzles. They try to simplify the problem by analogy and try to highlight the issues of the original problem through severe imagery (incendiary in an orphanage, wtf), but all they do is mislead, because the choice of what is magnified is an opinion, and the lesson to be learned is shaped by bias. In this example, we are meant to assume that the incendiary is the equivalent of fuel overload in mismanaged forests. But the analogy is bunk. No one is planting bombs (it's not a willful act), the policy of stopping fires was once considered good, and when it was no longer considered good, there were also issues of homes and property to protect. And then there is climate change that is ostensibly creating dryer and longer fire seasons, so the underlying factors have changed. Yet the thought puzzle is designed to have obvious answers (aka bias) that the author wants us to apply in the real world. This is manipulation. Give us the real world problem and more information to think about it, we are smart enough.