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

on April 23 at 07:02PM

Confusion

I am really struggling to understand this question and what it is asking from me. This is how I broke it down: FD->KE Not KE->Not FD question stem is asking which statement goes with the biologists claim but not politician's I initially chose D Correct Answer B says "Deforestation is stopped and the koala becomes extinct" Can someone please break this question down ?

1 Reply

Phung Ha on June 25 at 08:03PM

The biologist says that if deforestation continues, the koala will approach extinction:

deforestation continues -> koala approaches extinction
Koala NOT going to extinct -> NO deforestation

The politician thinks that stopping deforestation is sufficient (that is, all that is needed) to save the koala:

NO deforestation -> Koala saved

Answer choice B provides a scenario (NO deforestation, Koala NOT saved) that is inconsistent with the politician's claim--according to the politician, if deforestation was stopped, the koala should have been saved. The biologist's claim is consistent with this scenario, because according to the biologist, "NO deforestation" is not sufficient to arrive at any conclusion.