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

shunhe May 30, 2020

Hi @bcross,

Thanks for the question! Let’s take a look at what exactly the biologist is saying. She’s telling us that if the forest continues to disappear at its present pace, then the koala will approach extinction. In other words

Forest disappear at present pace —> Koala approach extinction

And so the claim in (B) is that deforestation is stopped and the koala becomes extinct. So what would this be? This is a case of

~Forest disappear at present pace —> Koala extinct

Does this contradict what the biologist says? No! To think so would be a case of mistaken negation. We can’t assume based on X —> Y and ~X —> Y are two completely consistent statements to hold. For example, consider the following:

If I drink this coffee tomorrow, the sun will rise.
If I don’t drink this coffee tomorrow, the sun will rise.

These two statements don’t “contradict” each other; both are true. In the exact same way, the statements

If deforestation continues, the Koala will go extinct
If deforestation doesn’t continue, the Koala will go extinct

are not logically inconsistent. The truth of one doesn’t automatically imply the falsity of the other. And so (B) is consistent with the biologist’s claim.

This question, just like all the questions assigned in the LSATMax course, now have detailed forward facing explanations that you can access when you “Review” your session. You will find unrivaled explanations written by our 99th-percentile instructors that include: (1) Argument or Facts, (2) Valid or Flawed, (3) Question Type, (4) Stimulus Summary, (5) Answer Anticipation, (6) Correct & Incorrect Answer Choice Explanations and (7) Key Takeaways. To ensure the optimal prep experience, please make sure you are taking advantage of these existing explanations before seeking further clarification on the message boards. 

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.

Jonathan June 5, 2020

"If the forest continues to disappear at its present pace, the koala will approach extinction," said the biologist.
"So all that is needed to save the koala is to stop deforestation," said the politician.

the "IF " in the biologist statement introduces sufficient
the "SO ALL" in the politician's statement should introduce sufficient too because " all " introduces sufficient right ? please let me know thanks.

Jonathan June 5, 2020

.....continuing the previous question, in the politician's statement , I assumed there was two parts of the statement , > this is how thought "to save Koala -> ~Deforestation "