"If the forest continues to disappear at its present pace, the koala will approach extinction," said the biologist.
"...
VernSmithNovember 14, 2020
Why is D wrong?
I am confused about answer choice B. if we were looking for conclusion, "So" could be an indicator. Yet here we are diagramming sufficient & necessary, so "All that is needed" is a strong indicator for requirement/ Necessary part. so we should have:
P: save K--> Stop D = not stop D --> not save K
S: current speed D--> not save K = save K --> not current speed D
Answer choice D is saying Slowing down (not stop) D, and K are saved, which is compatible with Biologist but not with Politician. BTW slow down is not = to stop according to every traffic cop in the country!
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
I had the same problem slow down/decrease(Bio) is not equal to Stop (pol.); the question stem says with B but NOT with P.
preddMarch 22, 2021
I have the same question. Can we please get an answer to this?!?
StephanieMay 10, 2022
Yes I also have this same question!
Emil-KunkinMay 12, 2022
Hi all,
The biologist believes that if FD -> Extinction The politician states that if Not FD -> not extinction
Answer choice D looks to be consistent with both the politician and the biologist's claim. While we could argue semantics and suggest that slowing deforestation is not exactly the same thing as stopping it, this does not actually matter. The politician argues that stopping deforestation is a sufficient condition for ensuring the survival of the koala. Even if a sufficient condition fails to occur (if, say, deforestation is only slowed and not entirely halted) the outcome or necessary condition could still occur. The politician is not arguing that stopping is the ONLY thing that will save the koala, only that it is sufficient to guarantee the koala's survival.
