Hi a@Robb2217, in this question we are looking for something that the biologist thinks is possible and the politician does not. The biologist states that If D -> E The politician states that If Not D -> Not E.
The politician misinterpreted the biologists argument the way you described, he just reversed.
B tells us that deforestation is stopped but koalas go extinct anyways. The politician states this is impossible, but the biologist tells us nothing about what happens if we do stop deforestation.
AshkanFebruary 23, 2022
I like your concise explanations, but what confuses me is how the AC B is consistent with the Biologist's claim? Isn't it true that if the sufficient condition fails, then the whole argument fails? Or should I assume that there might be other reasons for the forest disappearance? I am not even sure if I can express my thoughts clearly on this question but I need help to understand how failing the sufficient condition of the Biologist's claim in AC B is consistent with his claim?
I only understand why it is inconsistent with the Politician's statement.
Emil-KunkinMarch 16, 2022
Hi @ashkan, we know nothing about what happens if the sufficient condition fails. B tells us that the first survives, but koalas go extinct anyways. This is possible if, as you said, there might be other reasons for the koala going extinct. Perhaps lack of water, or the koala flu killed them, and the forest would remain.
