IMO - B

(B) Deforestation is stopped and the koala becomes extinct.

“So all that is needed to save the koala is to stop deforestation,” said the politician.

What's the OA?

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.

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.

I would have to choose between C and D...
Ill go with D as C seems a out of scope with the introduction of reforestation.

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

But somehow i feel its C. what is teh official answer?

C and D are shortlisted. I like "C" better though.

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

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

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.
Is "B" OA?
thank you

chica_okp wrote:

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

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.
Is "B" OA?
thank you

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

Stuart 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.

wow!!! never seen a better explanation..I was totally confused with this question and now I understand. And now I understand what consistent means..thanks