"If the forest continues to disappear at its present pace, the koala will approach extinction," said the biologist.
"...
epinaJuly 16, 2021
Reversing on A
I get how the solution for the biologists part, but I’m confused on the politicians part. To me it seems like we got the solution by reversing and I thought that was one of the key rules not to do. Just looking for a quick explanation thank you!
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Note that the biologist is saying stopping deforestation is necessary but not sufficient to save the koala, whereas the politician is saying stopping deforestation IS sufficient to save the koala.
Answer option A: Deforestation continues and the koala becomes extinct. This matches the biologist because they said (deforestation->extinction). However, this also matches the politician because they said (extinction -> deforestation continues).
Option B however: Deforestation stopped and koala becomes extinct. This is consistent with the biologist because we are not meeting the sufficient condition in the biologists statement, so they don't tell us anything about a necessary condition. However for the politician, they said if we stop deforestation -> save koala. But here we stopped deforestation and the koala is still extinct. So this is breaking what the politician is saying, and this is our correct answer!
