Top Law Schools

I got the answer right, but to be honest I don't really know why, can anyone help me?
It will most likely be very obvious to all of you.

"If the forest continues to disappear at its present pace, the koala will approach extinction," said the biologist.

"So all that is needed to save the koala is to stop deforestation," said the politician.

Which one of the following statements is consistent with the biologist's claim but not with the politician's claim?

Correct answer: Deforestation is stopped and the koala becomes extinct.

If you need me to give the incorrect answers let me know. Thanx

The biologist never says what will happen if deforestation is slowed, so as long as deforestation slows down then anything that happens does not contradict him.

Yep, that is what I thought, but that just seemed to easy.

Can't stand when I make things harder for myself

thanks

Here is what I don't get:

Why isn't it D: Deforestation is slowed and the koala survives?

If we look at the question which states which one of the following statements is consistant with the biologist's claim but not with the politician's claim, I would think D could also be it.

Why do I say that? I say that because the politican's claim is that deforestation needs to be stopped for the Koala to survive. But D says deforestation is slowed and the Koala survives but the politican's claim is absolute, so how can that absolute be consistant with D?

nycparalegal wrote:Here is what I don't get:

Why isn't it D: Deforestation is slowed and the koala survives?

If we look at the question which states which one of the following statements is consistant with the biologist's claim but not with the politician's claim, I would think D could also be it.

Why do I say that? I say that because the politican's claim is that deforestation needs to be stopped for the Koala to survive. But D says deforestation is slowed and the Koala survives but the politican's claim is absolute, so how can that absolute be consistant with D?

Read it again. The politician's statement says nothing about what would happen if deforestation is not stopped/slowed.

BenJ wrote:

nycparalegal wrote:Here is what I don't get:

Why isn't it D: Deforestation is slowed and the koala survives?

If we look at the question which states which one of the following statements is consistant with the biologist's claim but not with the politician's claim, I would think D could also be it.

Why do I say that? I say that because the politican's claim is that deforestation needs to be stopped for the Koala to survive. But D says deforestation is slowed and the Koala survives but the politican's claim is absolute, so how can that absolute be consistant with D?

Read it again. The politician's statement says nothing about what would happen if deforestation is not stopped/slowed.

Exactly, the politican says that the only way the Koala can survive is through the fact that deforestation is stopped. If it doesn't stop then the Koala will not survive. Hence, if Deforestation is slowed it means that it didnt stop and the Koala cannot survive. Making D consistant with the biologist's claim and not consistant with the politican's claim.

nycparalegal wrote:

BenJ wrote:

nycparalegal wrote:Here is what I don't get:

Why isn't it D: Deforestation is slowed and the koala survives?

If we look at the question which states which one of the following statements is consistant with the biologist's claim but not with the politician's claim, I would think D could also be it.

Why do I say that? I say that because the politican's claim is that deforestation needs to be stopped for the Koala to survive. But D says deforestation is slowed and the Koala survives but the politican's claim is absolute, so how can that absolute be consistant with D?

Read it again. The politician's statement says nothing about what would happen if deforestation is not stopped/slowed.

Exactly, the politican says that the only way the Koala can survive is through the fact that deforestation is stopped. If it doesn't stop then the Koala will not survive. Hence, if Deforestation is slowed it means that it didnt stop and the Koala cannot survive. Making D consistant with the biologist's claim and not consistant with the politican's claim.

I think you may be reading the politician's claim wrong. He isn't saying that it is necessary to stop deforestation for the Koala to survive, or that it is the only way for it to survive. He is saying that stopping deforestation is sufficient to allow the Koala to survive.

"All that is needed" = if we do this, we don't need to do anything else = sufficient.

There could be many other sufficient methods, each one of which would not require the others. For example, slowing deforestation could also be sufficient (Answer choice D)

Forget the finite details and diagram the relationships.

FDPP = Forest Disappears at Present Pace
KE = Koala nears Extinction

Biologist's claim (using "If" to indicate sufficient):

FDDPP -> KE


SDF = Stop Deforestation
[strike]KE[/strike] = Koala NOT nears Extinction (paraphrase of) Save Koala's

Politician's claim (using "all" to indicate sufficient, trickier because of wording):
SDF -> [strike]KE[/strike]


See how the politician's claim is roughly a Mistaken Reversal of the Biologist's claim? While the prior points raised about the semantics of the conditions are helpful, the key to conditional questions is relationship between the sufficient and necessary conditions.

Answer D is not correct because we know nothing about what happens when Deforestation is slowed. That diagram would have to look like this: [strike]FDPP[/strike] -> [strike]KE[/strike], which is a Mistaken Negation error when trying to claim it is consistent with the Biologist.