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

Part 1 of the question: Mehran states even though the phrase"deforestation is slowed" is not the same as the phrase "stop deforestation," but even so, answer choice D is not inconsistent with the politician statement, why? Could you provide a further illustration, especially taking into account that Mehran was willing to go with the flow with answer choice C and assume that "reforestation" could gain the same meaning as "stop deforestation" if I understood correctly? When do we give 'the change in a description' the same meaning as that of the S & N conditions stated in the passage and when do we not. I feel like this is an issue for me, I was confused on whether I should give the same acronym (during diagramming) to the phrases "stop deforestation, forests continue to disappear at its present pace, reforestation," which I ended up doing. Part 2 of the question: I reversed the politician's statements, for I took 'save the Koala' to be my sufficient condition. My analysis was based on what required what since I understood from the S&N lesson that the necessary is a requirement for the sufficient. From the phrase "is needed to," I assumed that stopping deforestation is required to save the Koala, and thus stopping deforestation is the necessary condition. Could you walk me through what I did wrong? Part 3 of the question: The question stem of which is consistent means which could be true, am I correct? Thank you in advance.