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

jennycepeda May 12, 2018

Hi. I've diagramed this a few times. Maybe I'm not getting it. Can you explain this one. Thanks

Mehran May 12, 2018

@thetrinabailey @jennycepeda what part of the video explanation is not making sense?

Raniasaidabdalla May 21, 2018

Mehran, may you please explain it to us without referring to video? The video doesn't help me why you chose B.

Mehran May 22, 2018

The term "consistent" means "does not contradict."

Thus, the question stem asks you to identify the one answer choice that does not contradict the biologist's claim, but DOES contradict the politician's claim.

The biologist's claim can be diagrammed as follows:
FCD ==> KAE
(if the forest continues to disappear, then the koala will approach extinction]

The politician's claim can be diagrammed as follows:
SD ==> not KE
(if you stop deforestation, then koalas will not become extinct)

Answer choice (B) is inconsistent with the politician's claim, because it says that deforestation has been stopped, yet the koala nevertheless becomes extinct. This is inconsistent with the politician's claim, which holds that stopping deforestation is *itself sufficient to prevent koala extinction.*

Answer choice (B) is consistent with the biologist's claim, because both the biologist's claim and the claim in answer choice (B) could be true simultaneously.

Hope this helps. Please let us know if you have any additional questions.

Alec-Julián July 6, 2018

B reads that the koala BECOMES extinct; however, the passage uses the term "approaches extinction", which as pointed out in earlier videos in reference to similar questions, is not the same thing. The inconsistency is very frustrating.

Mehran July 8, 2018

You are right that this discrepancy (the difference between "approaches extinction" and "become extinct") would torpedo a "must be true" question, because these concepts are different. But this is NOT a "must be true" question. This is a "could be true" question - you are asked to select the answer choice that is consistent with the biologist's claim (i.e., could be true) but not consistent with the politician's claim (i.e., cannot be true). That's the key to this question.

Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any additional questions.