“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.
CR 1000
D. in my opinion
According to biologist its the pace of deforestation which will make the koala extinct.
So to stop koala from extinction all we have to do is slow down the pace.
According to politician,
Stopping deforestation will save koala
D agrees with the biologist but not with the politician.
According to biologist its the pace of deforestation which will make the koala extinct.
So to stop koala from extinction all we have to do is slow down the pace.
According to politician,
Stopping deforestation will save koala
D agrees with the biologist but not with the politician.
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 416
- Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:08 am
- Thanked: 10 times
- Followed by:1 members
I would have to choose between C and D...f2001290 wrote:“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.
Ill go with D as C seems a out of scope with the introduction of reforestation.
-
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:45 am
- Thanked: 1 times
i think its A
biologist: deforestration continues- koala becomes extinct
politician: deofrestration stopped - koala survives
C:out of scope
D and E: no mention of deforestration being slowed anywhere in the q
B:agrees with no one
therefore A
biologist: deforestration continues- koala becomes extinct
politician: deofrestration stopped - koala survives
C:out of scope
D and E: no mention of deforestration being slowed anywhere in the q
B:agrees with no one
therefore A
Abhishek sunku
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 214
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:30 am
- Thanked: 15 times
Deforestation is leading to the extiction of K.
Politician misinterprets this by saying that only stopping deforestation is the only thing that is affecting the koalas.
So they are other things that might cause K to become extinct.
Hence even though deforestation is stopped K might still becomes extinct this is correctly mentioned in B
Hope this helps
Politician misinterprets this by saying that only stopping deforestation is the only thing that is affecting the koalas.
So they are other things that might cause K to become extinct.
Hence even though deforestation is stopped K might still becomes extinct this is correctly mentioned in B
Hope this helps
Surely it is very nice explanation. I agree regarding politician. I just interpret biologist words in the following way: K depends on forest to survive. That is why I eliminated B. I believe it is not consistent with the biologist.sujaysolanki wrote:Deforestation is leading to the extiction of K.
Politician misinterprets this by saying that only stopping deforestation is the only thing that is affecting the koalas.
So they are other things that might cause K to become extinct.
Hence even though deforestation is stopped K might still becomes extinct this is correctly mentioned in B
Hope this helps
Is "B" OA?
thank you
Let your dream lead you
chica
chica
-
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:45 am
- Thanked: 1 times
IN B I FEEL THE BIOLOGOST'S CLAIM IS NOT SUPPORTED. THE BIOLOGIST SAYS THAT CONTINUATION OF DEFORESTRATION WILL LEAD TO THE EXTINCTION OF K. BUT B SAYS STOPPING DEFORESTRATION WILL LEAD TO THE EXTINCTION OF K.chica_okp wrote:Surely it is very nice explanation. I agree regarding politician. I just interpret biologist words in the following way: K depends on forest to survive. That is why I eliminated B. I believe it is not consistent with the biologist.sujaysolanki wrote:Deforestation is leading to the extiction of K.
Politician misinterprets this by saying that only stopping deforestation is the only thing that is affecting the koalas.
So they are other things that might cause K to become extinct.
Hence even though deforestation is stopped K might still becomes extinct this is correctly mentioned in B
Hope this helps
Is "B" OA?
thank you
Abhishek sunku
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 158
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:32 am
- Thanked: 7 times
Answer must be C.
Here is my reasoning.
Biologist: DF --> ~K (Deforestation implies no Koila)
Politician: Excludes all other possibilities except Deforestation. i.e. politician says the ONLY way to stop Koila's extinction is to stop DF.
The following stmt is also consitent with biologist's stmt.
Grazing by cattle --> ~K
But politician's stmt doesn't allow that, because his stmt says the only way to save koila is DF, but well we can save koila also by stopping grazing by cattle, and this is what is captured by C.
Calista.
Here is my reasoning.
Biologist: DF --> ~K (Deforestation implies no Koila)
Politician: Excludes all other possibilities except Deforestation. i.e. politician says the ONLY way to stop Koila's extinction is to stop DF.
The following stmt is also consitent with biologist's stmt.
Grazing by cattle --> ~K
But politician's stmt doesn't allow that, because his stmt says the only way to save koila is DF, but well we can save koila also by stopping grazing by cattle, and this is what is captured by C.
Calista.
-
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 11:42 pm
- Location: California
I support
Deforestation is slowed and the koala survives.
the above sentence supports the Biologists claim that it is the pace of the deforetation that is affecting the survival of K.
the above sentense also make the politian;s claim inconsistent by focusing on the pace of the deforestation and not just on the deforestation itself.
Deforestation is slowed and the koala survives.
the above sentence supports the Biologists claim that it is the pace of the deforetation that is affecting the survival of K.
the above sentense also make the politian;s claim inconsistent by focusing on the pace of the deforestation and not just on the deforestation itself.
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 222
- Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 8:10 pm
- Thanked: 15 times
Biologist :
if the deforestation is done at present pace (slow or fast paces) Koala becomes extinct
Politician:
stopping deforestation is the only way to prevent koala from extinction
i will go with Answer (C)
if the deforestation is done at present pace (slow or fast paces) Koala becomes extinct
Politician:
stopping deforestation is the only way to prevent koala from extinction
i will go with Answer (C)
- Stuart@KaplanGMAT
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 3225
- Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 2:40 pm
- Location: Toronto
- Thanked: 1710 times
- Followed by:614 members
- GMAT Score:800
Biologist: If deforestation, then K extinct
Politician: If no deforestation, then K not extinct
is the simplest way to translate the sentences.
When we say that two statements are consistent, we mean that they can both be true at the same time. Consistent doesn't mean connected.
For example:
Toronto is the capital of Ontario; and
Oranges are bumpy
are consistent statements.
When we say that two statements are inconsistent, we mean that they cannot both be true at the same time - i.e. they're contradictory.
For example:
Washington DC is the capital of the USA; and
Miama is the capital of the USA
are inconsistent statements.
So, back to our statements:
Biologist: If deforestation, then K extinct
Politician: If no deforestation, then K not extinct
We want an answer that's consistent (i.e. doesn't contradict) with the biologist and inconsistent (i.e. does contradict) with the politician.
Choice (B) gives us what we want.
"Deforestation is stopped and the koala becomes extinct"
The biologist never says that deforestation is the only problem facing the Koala; it's possible that we save the forest but all the koalas get run over by drunken Aussies in vans.
However, the politician says that stopping deforestation will definitely save the Koala. (B) clearly contradicts that statement.
Politician: If no deforestation, then K not extinct
is the simplest way to translate the sentences.
When we say that two statements are consistent, we mean that they can both be true at the same time. Consistent doesn't mean connected.
For example:
Toronto is the capital of Ontario; and
Oranges are bumpy
are consistent statements.
When we say that two statements are inconsistent, we mean that they cannot both be true at the same time - i.e. they're contradictory.
For example:
Washington DC is the capital of the USA; and
Miama is the capital of the USA
are inconsistent statements.
So, back to our statements:
Biologist: If deforestation, then K extinct
Politician: If no deforestation, then K not extinct
We want an answer that's consistent (i.e. doesn't contradict) with the biologist and inconsistent (i.e. does contradict) with the politician.
Choice (B) gives us what we want.
"Deforestation is stopped and the koala becomes extinct"
The biologist never says that deforestation is the only problem facing the Koala; it's possible that we save the forest but all the koalas get run over by drunken Aussies in vans.
However, the politician says that stopping deforestation will definitely save the Koala. (B) clearly contradicts that statement.
Stuart Kovinsky | Kaplan GMAT Faculty | Toronto
Kaplan Exclusive: The Official Test Day Experience | Ready to Take a Free Practice Test? | Kaplan/Beat the GMAT Member Discount
BTG100 for $100 off a full course
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 11:04 pm
- Location: Tokyo
- Thanked: 81 times
- GMAT Score:680
wow!!! never seen a better explanation..I was totally confused with this question and now I understand. And now I understand what consistent means..thanksStuart Kovinsky wrote:Biologist: If deforestation, then K extinct
Politician: If no deforestation, then K not extinct
is the simplest way to translate the sentences.
When we say that two statements are consistent, we mean that they can both be true at the same time. Consistent doesn't mean connected.
For example:
Toronto is the capital of Ontario; and
Oranges are bumpy
are consistent statements.
When we say that two statements are inconsistent, we mean that they cannot both be true at the same time - i.e. they're contradictory.
For example:
Washington DC is the capital of the USA; and
Miama is the capital of the USA
are inconsistent statements.
So, back to our statements:
Biologist: If deforestation, then K extinct
Politician: If no deforestation, then K not extinct
We want an answer that's consistent (i.e. doesn't contradict) with the biologist and inconsistent (i.e. does contradict) with the politician.
Choice (B) gives us what we want.
"Deforestation is stopped and the koala becomes extinct"
The biologist never says that deforestation is the only problem facing the Koala; it's possible that we save the forest but all the koalas get run over by drunken Aussies in vans.
However, the politician says that stopping deforestation will definitely save the Koala. (B) clearly contradicts that statement.
The powers of two are bloody impolite!!