"If the forest continues to disappear at its present pace, the koala will approach extinction," said the biologist.
"...
Julia96September 6, 2023
KAE (V). SK
The answer became clear when I saw the politician's claim diagrammed as /D --> /KAE.
However, I first diagrammed the politician's claim as follows: /D --> SK.
My trouble in finding the correct answer stemmed from the politician's necessary condition not matching the necessary condition from the biologist's claim.
It seems in most S&N questions, diagramming the differences in subtle language are usually essential in selecting the correct answer (i.e. meaning we would interpret "slowing deforestation" differently from "stopping deforestation").
In short, why in this case did paraphrase "If the forest continues to disappear at its present pace" and "stop deforestation" to mean the same thing.
The LSAT usually wants us to be very intentional in diagramming differences in language. What about this question is/should be leading us to interpret the necessary conditions of both parties as being the same?
I have struggled with understanding this for over the year I've studied and a response would be immensely appreciated
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
I think it's critical to understand the plain meaning of a term. Here, the ideas of saving the koala and stopping it from approaching extinction are doing the exact same thing, while the words are different they are expressing ideas that are effectively the same- at least in this context.
The idea of slowing deforestation and stopping deforestation is a bit different. You correctly identified that the politician is talking about completely stopping deforestation, while the biologist is talking about slowing it. One is more extreme than the other. However, in this case, it matters which is the more extreme. The idea of stopping inherently contains the idea of slowing. If we stop deforestation we necessarily have slowed its rate to zero. Since the scientist is talking about the weaker option, it's not really wrong for the politician to suggest doing the stronger one, since it would have the same effect as the weaker.
