All right, I had to make a thread on this.... After reading through plenty of other threads, I saw many people comment on the fact that Daryl and Beth burnt down their only shelter for the night like idiots and wandered off drunk in the woods.

I don't understand why people can't look past the blantant obvious of certain situations and come to realistic conclusions.

First off... that "house" is more of a shed, with broken down and open windows, open walls with weak sheets of wood attached. This creates an environment where walkers could come sneaking into this house unnoticed while your stuck in a small room. Secondly, having 1 walker making noise outside could draw more walkers, as they mentioned. And more walkers could possibly surround this shed and trap them inside and perhaps start breaking down the house walls. (I won't mention the fact they most likely weren't sleeping that night and decided to continue to search and move on regardless) Oooops.

So... not only do they accomplish "starting fresh" by burning down this very unsafe and dangerous house (literally and symbolically). They created a HUGE and loud distraction of a fire (enhanced because it's night) which attracted all the walkers in the area to this house allowing Daryl and Beth to make their way out un-noticed to find something more safe while all the walkers around move and walk towards the burning house. The camera even specifically showed walkers being attracted to it and drawing them in.

Is it that difficult to draw realistic conclusions from things instead of always resorting to "lazy writing". I feel like the writers really do have to spell it out through dialogue for some people on why things happen the way they do, or why characters will do certain things. Because it does happen a lot around here, and some people will always come to the wrong conclusion or for some reason, always think the worse.