Beat The GMAT a GMAT & MBA community

I agree that it should be D

IMO the answer is B.

This directly refutes that politicians claim, while is at least consistent with the biologists claims.

The reason I say its consistent with the biologist's claims is that the biologist says;

If deforrestation continues, koalas will approach extinction. - From this the only other thing we can deduce is;

If koalas do not approach extinction, deforrestation has not continued.

B says deforrestion has not continued and the koalas have become extinct. This supports the biologists claim because the biologist says that if deforrestation continues the koalas will approach extinction. There is a difference in becoming extinct and approaching extinction. What if, for some freak reason, the stopping of deforrestation actually caused all the pandas to die immediately? This would support the biologist because the biologist didn't say anything about what would happen if deforrestation stopped. Thus, B at least is consistent with the biologist.

What is the official answer?

i went with C because it opposes Politicians idea of stopping deforestation, instead it proposes the opposite . At the same time choice C goes with biologist "the koala survives"..what did i miss??

In the post http://www.beatthegmat.com/cr-1000-t3251.html Stuart Kovinsky clearly explained the logic.

I am just rewriting it here:
Biologist: If deforestation, then K extinct - doesn't mean deforestation is THE ONLY reason but says it is one of the reasons
Politician: If no deforestation, then K not extinct - means deforestation is THE ONLY reason.

Our option should say :
deforestation is stopped and still K approaches extinction to be not consistant with Politician.

So we are left with B and D.
However D doesn't say deforestation stopped. It has to be "stopped" in order to refute politician's view.

HTH. Thanks

Hi,

If we note the politicians statement: "So all that is needed to save the koala is to stop deforestation", we find that the necessary condition, indicated by the word needed is referring to the action stop deforestation

So shouldn't the diagram read as follows -

If K not extinct, then no deforestation
(sufficient: If K not extinct -----> necessary: no deforestation)

I cant get my head around this!!

Any help is most appreciated.

Sid.

Please elaborate this & how D is incorrect

_________________
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button

Politician's claim: So all that is needed to save the koala is to stop deforestation

D, which says: "Deforestation is slowed and the koala survives" is not inconsistent with Politician's claim.

This is basically what politician is saying: If there is no deforestation, Koala will survive.

_________________
Ashish
MBA - ISB, GMAT - 99th Percentile
GMAT Faculty @ EducationAisle
www.EducationAisle.com

Read testimonials of our students who made it to top schools (IIMs, ISB, Darden and XLRI, among others): http://EducationAisle.com/testimonials.html

Politician's claim: So all that is needed to save the koala is to stop deforestation IMPLIES Koala can be saved only be stopping deforestation

Now D says Koala can be saved by slowing deforestation. Isn't it inconsistent, what am i missing

_________________
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button

Anyone who would like to give it a shot !

_________________
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button