Self-study
Ecologist: Without the intervention of conservationists, squirrel monkeys will become extinct. ███ ████ ████ ███████ ██ █████ ██████ ██ █████████████ ██████ ███████ ███ █████████ ███ █████ ████████ ███████ ████████ ██ █████████████ ██████ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ ██████ ██ █████ ████████ ███████ ███ ██████
Summary
First sentence - “Without” is used just like “unless” here, so it means:
If there is NO intervention of conservationists → squirrel monkeys extinct
Second sentence - “If” introduces the sufficient condition:
Tracts of second-growth forest preserved → squirrel monkeys NOT extinct
The last sentence tells us why squirrel monkeys “flourish” in second-growth forest. But it is not a conditional and does not connect to the conditionals in the first two sentences.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
We can connect the first two sentences, although you need to do the contrapositive of one or the other to see the connection:
If there is NO intervention of conservationists → squirrel monkeys extinct → tracts of second-growth forest NOT preserved
OR
If tracts of second-growth forest preserved → squirrel monkeys NOT extinct → there was intervention of conservationists
23.
Which one of the following ███ ██ ████████ ████████ ████ ███ ███████████ ███████████
a
No habitat other ████ █████████████ ██████ ████████ █████████ ████████ ██ ████████ ████████ ████████ ███████ ███ ██████
Not supported. We know that second growth forests have a lot of the favorite insects and fruit. This doesn’t imply that other habitats don’t have these things.
b
At least some ██ ███ ████████████████ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ███ ████████ ███████ ███████ ████ ██ ██ ██ ██████████ █████████████ ██████ ███████ ███ ███ ████████
From the first sentence, we know that if the monkeys survive, the conservationists must have intervened. But we don’t know exactly how the conservationists intervened. What they did might be unrelated to the forests. Sure, one way to guarantee survival is by preserving the second-growth forest habitat. But we don't know that this is the only way for the monkeys to survive.
c
Without plentiful supplies ██ █████ ████████ ███████ ███ ██████ ████████ ███████ ████ ██████ ████████
We know that without the intervention of conservationists, the monkeys will go extinct. But we have no idea whether lack of favorite fruits and insects will lead to extinction. The monkeys can “flourish” because of those fruits and insects; but this doesn’t imply that without those things, the monkeys will die.
d
If conservationists intervene ██ ████ ████████ ███████ ████████ ████ ███ ████████ ███████ ████ ███ ██████ ████████
This confuses sufficient and necessary conditions. We know that if conservationists DON’T intervene, the monkeys will go extinct. This does not imply that if conservationists DO intervene, that the monkeys will survive.
e
Without the intervention ██ █████████████████ █████ ██████ ██ █████████████ ██████ ███████ ████ ███ ██ █████████ ███ ████████ ████████
(E) is supported by the connection between the first two sentences:
If there is NO intervention of conservationists → squirrel monkeys extinct → tracts of second-growth forest NOT preserved