"If the forest continues to disappear at its present pace, the koala will approach extinction," said the biologist.
"...
WyattJuly 27, 2018
Need Help
I have read all the threads and watched the video 6 times along with S&N video
I understood the drills very well but this question is ridiculous to me....
I understand the diagramming but I don't get how the necessary doesn't become invoked here to prove consistency with the biologist.
not KAE-----> not FCD
Answer B obviously contradicts the politician and I get that SD---->SK because he says all you need to do is stop deforestation. But I dont get how its consistent with the biologist?
Answer A to me is the exact same thing...it matches the biologist, and the only way it could be consistent with the politician would be to invoke the necessary of the contra-positive which is flawed in doing so correct? Or is it because we would have to invoke the necessary that it leaves it open for possibility?
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
@Wyatt, I remember having a few questions that stumped me like this, but I'll try to clear it up for you.
This question is tricky because you're looking for a hypothetical that contradicts one argument while being "consistent" with another. The politician is saying that if you stop deforestation, the koala will survive. The biologist is saying if you do not stop deforestation, the koala will die. (B) works because it contradicts the politician's argument. You've got that down, so I won't belabor that point, but why is it consistent with the biologist's claim?
I think the trouble you're having comes down to the word "consistent." Consistent doesn't mean that "it follows logically." Consistent means "it is possible" or "if fits within the framework of the argument." (B) is consistent with the biologist's argument because the biologist does not rule out the possibility of that happening. The biologist is saying that if deforestation continues, the koala will die, but it's possible that we could completely stop deforestation but the koala still go extinct.
In other words, deforestation is only one factor that is pushing the koala toward extinction, but it is a major factor. It is possible that stopping deforestation could save the koala, but it's also possible that the level of deforestation has already pushed the koala population to the point of no return. It's also possible that despite stopping deforestation, the increase of predators could threaten the survival of the species. There are many factors that could still cause the extinction of the koala. Therefore, stopping deforestation but still losing the koala species is "consistent" with the biologist's argument while contradicting the politician's.
Does that help?
WyattJuly 28, 2018
Yes that actually helps a ton thank you. Very good explanation I appreciate it.
hipfire44January 7, 2019
Great thread. Was super confused as well.
RaviJanuary 7, 2019
@hipfire44,
Happy to see that this thread helped! If you have any additional questions on this problem or any others, please let us know—we're here to help!
