BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Biologist and Politician

Expert replies
by vikram_k51 » Thu Aug 13, 2009 9:07 am
“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.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by niraj_a » Thu Aug 13, 2009 9:12 am
D? B came pretty close too.

Notice that the biologist hints at reducing the current pace whereas the politico says to stop the process altogether. that distinction made me choose D over B.
Join the discussion

IMHO

by kc_raj » Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:07 pm
IMHO it should be B, B is consistent with what biologist says as rate of deforestation is not the only factor causing extinction, also it contradicts politician that although deforestation is stopped still Koala becomes extinct.

D does not contradict politician,
Join the discussion

by gmatv09 » Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:26 pm
IMO D

Deforestation slows = koala survives (stimulus: Deforestation continues = koala approaches extinction)
Join the discussion

by riteshbindal » Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:54 pm
D IMO. OA plz.
Join the discussion

by mehravikas » Thu Aug 13, 2009 6:10 pm
IMO - B

Good question.
riteshbindal wrote:D IMO. OA plz.
Join the discussion

by vikram_k51 » Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:18 am
OA is B.

But i think it should be D.

Can someone explain how B is correct?
Join the discussion

by sreak1089 » Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:36 am
IMO B, because:

Bilogist says:
“If the forest continues to disappear at its present pace, the koala will approach extinction,”, which implies that Deforstation should be stopped.

Politician says:
“So all that is needed to save the koala is to stop deforestation,”, which implies if Deforstation is stopped, Koala will be saved.

Option B is consistent with what Biologist says, which is to stop Deforstation and is not consistent with what Politician expects, which is inspite of Deforstation being stopped, Koala becomes extinct.
Join the discussion

by riteshbindal » Fri Aug 14, 2009 5:43 am
sreak1089 wrote:IMO B, because:

Bilogist says:
“If the forest continues to disappear at its present pace, the koala will approach extinction,”, which implies that Deforstation should be stopped.

Politician says:
“So all that is needed to save the koala is to stop deforestation,”, which implies if Deforstation is stopped, Koala will be saved.

Option B is consistent with what Biologist says, which is to stop Deforstation and is not consistent with what Politician expects, which is inspite of Deforstation being stopped, Koala becomes extinct.
How can B be inline with what biologist is saying?
B says that
"(B) Deforestation is stopped and the koala becomes extinct."
Biologist is saying:
“If the forest continues to disappear at its present pace, the koala will approach extinction,”
which means that if deforestation is not stopped, Koala will extinct.
So how can both the statements true at the same time???
Join the discussion

by sanp_l » Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:21 am
Deforestation continues and koala approach extinction : Biologist

Stop deforestation and that is all needed and koala survives: Politician

The nearest is the option B.
It says "Deforestation is stopped and the koala becomes extinct. " Deforestation is stopped and if koala survive, it would be in accordance with the politician.
It is thus in line with both the approaching extinction and deforestation not being the only cause.

Option D is also inline with politician's view apart from being supportive of the biologist.
Sandy
Join the discussion