From a camping perspective: "Is the fire cold?" is asking if there are enough coals and/or embers to get it restarted. From a black smith perspectrive, if your fire isn't hot enough to forge your metel, then it's cold. ... just thinking outside the microwave freezer and the frost-free oven.
I have seen quite a few funny statements about logic being chucked out the window (with out context yes), but this question in English would usually refer to a night watch making sure a fire of a camp is out and will not surge back to life if something falls into. so "Is the fire cold" would mean "Is the firepit cold" so everyone can get some sleep.
The correct answer is; is the fire cold. That is because there is that das, in this sentence. In German, there are a lot of words that translate into the. One of them is das, altho that is just the neuter form of the.
So if das translates into the, the correct answer is actually; is the fire cold?
I don't think you understood the question at hand. They were asking if they should be able to leave out the definite article when translating to English, referring to "Das", which they already understand is "The". They are under the impression that the "definite article" must always accompany the noun in German, which it does not. So in this particular case, the German is talking about a specific fire, and when translated to English, we also need to specify that we are talking about a specific fire, hence the translated "the".
In fact, German doesn't always use articles as in English. Example: "Die Katze frisst die Käfer" translates into "The cat is eating the beatles". Notice the lack of "ist" in the German sentence. The verb usually implies the article in German so it isn't needed.
Now I'm no language teacher, so I'm not sure what everything is called anymore since I haven't had a language class in around a decade and a half, but I'm pretty sure that's what they meant. I don't know what a "definite article" means, but I gather that it is an "article" (word) that "defines" the specifics of a noun. I think they just misunderstood something they read.
A paradoxical saying, where a person is disrespected unmeasurably. It is so intense that others can feel the 'coldness' of the' burn'. The victim usually suffers severe emotional and social distress as an after effect. BUT, I don't think DL had this on their mind. Or, am I wrong?