"If the forest continues to disappear at its present pace, the koala will approach extinction," said the biologist.
"...
ShirnelFebruary 19, 2020
Ok so what is the answer to this question? A or B?
I am reading through the comments to try to determine the answer however I cannot determine whether it is A or B especially because I saw the word "contradict" in some of the statements. I chose A because the question asked what is consistent with the biologist but not with the politician. Please advise.
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
The biologist says, in conditional language, if the forest disappears at its present pace, then the koala will approach extinction.
forest disappearing —> the koala in jeopardy Koala not in jeopardy—> forest not disappearing
The politician says, also in conditional language, all that is needed to save the koala is to stop deforestation.
stop deforestation —> save the koala Don’t save the koala —> didn’t stop deforestation
The biologist is treating stopping forest destruction as a necessary condition to the koala’s survival, while the politician is treating it as sufficient to ensure the koala’s survival.
In saying that stopping forest destruction is necessary to koala survival, the biologist is saying that without the stopping of the destruction, the koala will be severely threatened. However, even if forest destruction is stopped, there are still other things that could threaten the koala’s survival, such as a disease epidemic or food shortage.
The politician is saying that ending deforestation is enough to guarantee that the koala survives. So, if we end deforestation, then nothing else could stop the koala from surviving (such as a disease epidemic or food shortage).
Answer choice A is consistent with the biologist, which we see from the conditional statement (forest disappearing —> the koala in jeopardy) attributed to him or her that aligns well with this idea. Good so far! However, the problem here is that answer choice A does not contradict the politician’s claim. Remember, the politician says: stop deforestation —> save the koala. So, there is nothing there that contradicts a scenario where deforestation continues, and the koala’s don’t make it.
Answer choice B gets us where we need to be for both. Remember how we said the biologist treats stopping forest destruction as a necessary condition to the koala’s survival? That means that even if you stop the destruction, that doesn’t mean the koala necessarily survives. It could still go extinct for other reasons, like disease or a food shortage, like we discussed above. So, for answer choice B to say that deforestation is stopped but the koala still goes extinct is consistent with the biologist’s statement.
However, this scenario is not consistent with the politician’s statement, who gave the reverse conditional. The politician said that stopping deforestation would guarantee the survival of the species (stop deforestation —> save the koala). In this answer choice, stopping deforestation still doesn’t lead to the koala’s survival. Therefore, this claim (answer choice B) is inconsistent with the politician’s claim because the sufficient condition is met but the necessary of the politician’s claim is not.
Hope this helps. Feel free to let us know if you have any more questions!
ShirnelFebruary 20, 2020
Ok, this was a very long explanation however this made me more confused. I am just simply following the path of drawing up sufficient and necessary conditions and I cannot understand how:
A: Deforestation continues and the koala becomes extinct.
B: Deforestation is stopped and the koala becomes extinct (this is consistent with what the biologist stated).
Didn't the biologist state: If the forest continues to disappear at its present pace, the koala will approach extinction," meaning Deforestation >>> Koala Extinct. I can't understand how answer choice B equates to being consistent with that claim. Answer choice B seems to be negated on the sufficient end so this is where I am confused.
ShirnelFebruary 24, 2020
Actually, I just realized there are video explanations. I will play it to see if I get a better understanding.
