Critical Reasoning

“If the forest continues to disappear at its present pace, the koala will approach extinction,” said the biologist.
“So all that is needed to save the koala is to stop deforestation,” said the politician.
Which one of the following statements is consistent with the biologist’s claim but not with the politician’s claim?
(A) Deforestation continues and the koala becomes extinct.
(B) Deforestation is stopped and the koala becomes extinct.
(C) Reforestation begins and the koala survives.
(D) Deforestation is slowed and the koala survives.
(E) Deforestation is slowed and the koala approaches extinction.

pls explain.

Is it B ?

There could be other reasons for why the Koala can become extinct.
All we know for sure is that declining forests will lead the Koala
to extinction.

thanx Jay
you are as always right.
Pls explain why B is consistent with biologist's claim.
I think it may or may not be consisitent.

Jay,Would you please explain why its B.
B is inconsistent with the politicians claim but how it is consistent with biologists claim.
According to Biologists if the forest disappears in the same rate,koala will approach extiction.
Now B says Deforestation is stopped but koala becomes extinct.Please explain

The answer is D

In biologist's claim: rate of deforestation = to rate extinction of koala.
Answer D agrees to that. fullfilled one requirement

In politicial's claim: stop deforestation and save the koala, but accroding to answer D we are saving the koala by reducing the rate of deforestation. Hence we are disagreeing with the politicial.

B says if deforestation is not stopped, the koala will become extinct.
It does not say if deforestation is stopped, the koala will not become extinct.

There is a distinction between these two statements.

Thus, B is consistent w/ the Biologist's claims.

beny wrote:B says if deforestation is not stopped, the koala will become extinct.
It does not say if deforestation is stopped, the koala will not become extinct.

There is a distinction between these two statements.

Thus, B is consistent w/ the Biologist's claims.

hey ben
ur statement implies that B may or may not be consistent
pls explain.

IMO: D.

What is the OA?

Thanks.

IMO B

The problem says...
1)biologist:if deforestation continues then koala extincts
2)politician:if no deforestation then koala dont extinct

The biologist says if deforestation continues then koala extincts, this maybe one cause. The koala might still get extinct, if its food resources are depleted. It can still get extinct if pollution increases. There can be lot of causes for its extinction & question says deforestation can be one of them.

consider B
deforestation stopped but still koala extincts...
This is consistent with biologist's claim.
This is inconsistent with politician's claim because he said koala will be saved but the opposite happened.

user123321

I'd also say D. B doesn't prove the biologist wrong conclusively, but he could have been wrong. But that is besides the point of the question, IMO. We're being asked about consistency. And, IMO, D is more consistent with the biologist's actual statement, and definitely inconsistent with the politician who stated deforestation needed to stop entirely to save the koala.