I am confused and not sure if I am understanding what everyone is saying. Is this how we are supposed to look at this?

If we assume that "protection of forests and their ecosystems is the only legitimate reason for attempting to prevent or control forest fires," then we are going to let them burn out because the stimulus tells us that we should not put out fires because they are protecting the forest and its ecosystem.

One thing I learned that has helped me is when you have "unless, until, without" in a sentence just changed it to "if not" and make whatever is after your sufficient and the other the necessary.

For example:

Without physical exercise, health deteriorates.

Change to:

If not physical exercise, health deteriorates.

Lawgic:

/physical exercise -> health deteriorates

I think this way is easier and it helps me convert it quicker.