The author uses the word "immediacy" (line 39) most likely in order to express
on July 6, 2020
Question regarding Homework Question #2
For the most part I would say I am comfortable with S/N diagramming. On a scale from 1-10, I would rate my understanding at about an 8. But Q.2 in the "homework" section following the S-->N lecture has me totally stumped. Below is the Passage, Question stem, my work, and Answer choices. B is what is listed as the correct answer according to the answer key at the end of the section.
Passage:
"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.
My work: B: Deforestation at present pace-->KAE
not KAE--> Deforestation slowed
P: not KAE --> Stop Deforestation
Question Stem: Which one of the following statements is consistent with the biologist's claim but not with the politician's claim?
(A) Deforestation continues and the koala becomes extinct.
(B) Deforestation is stopped and the koala becomes extinct.
(C) Reforestation begins and the koala survives.
(D) Deforestation is slowed and the koala survives.
(E) Deforestation is slowed and the Koala survives.
Every time I go through homework questions for practice I come up with D. How on earth is the right answer B? Can someone please tell me where I'm going wrong?
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Thanks for the question! So let’s take a look at what the biologist and politician are saying here. The biologist says that if the forest continues to disappear, then the koala will approach extinction. In other words
deforestation —> Koala approaches extinction
Which implies the contrapositive
~Koala approaches extinction —> ~deforestation
Now let’s take a look at what the politician is saying: all that’s needed to save the koala is to stop deforestation. In other words, if we stop deforestation, it’ll save the koala, so
Now the question is asking us for a statement that is both consistent with the biologist’s claim and inconsistent with the politician’s one. Let’s take a look at (D), which tells us that deforestation is slowed and the koala survives. Well, right off the bat, we know that (D) can’t be right because we can’t say that (D) is inconsistent with the politician’s claim! The politician talks about stopping deforestation, whereas (D) is just about slowing it. So since the politician’s claim and (D) aren’t even about the same thing, they can’t be inconsistent, and (D) is out.
Now let’s take a look at (B). Deforestation is stopped and the koala becomes extinct. Is this consistent with the biologist’s claim? Well, yes, because the biologist just says that if there is continued deforestation, then the koala approaches extinction; the biologist doesn’t say anything about what could happen if deforestation stops. So (B) is consistent with (doesn’t contradict) what the biologist says. And (B) is also inconsistent (contradicts) with what the political says. Since in (B), deforestation stops, but the koala becomes extinct; the political thinks that if you stop deforestation, the koala won’t approach extinction.
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.
