I cannot for the life of me understand how to arrive at the answer to this question. I mapped the biologist's reasoning as Deforestation>/Koalas, and I mapped the politician's as K>/Deforestation. So in order for the politician to be right, we must meet the sufficient condition; the only way we can know the politician is wrong is if we either have K>Deforestation or (the contrapositive being wrong) Deforestation>K. I didn't see either of these options, and indeed, the correct answer choice says /Deforestation>/Koalas, which IS the correct contrapositive (so it agrees with the politician).

Thank you!

Admin note: Edited the title. Please use the format "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of question"

How to find the background info vs. premise vs. conclusion in PT4.S1.Q11.

I could not for the life of me figure out which sentences in the stimulus were the premises and which were the conclusion (and perhaps which was merely background info):

Can someone please clue me in?

Thanks so much.

In lesson 16 of 18, we are told that "some people say" is not part of the argument, but in the explanation to Exercise 3 in Lesson 16, we are told the phrase does introduce the author's argument. Could we get a definitive answer from 7Sage or LSAC about this seeming contradiction?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/quiz-advanced-premise-conclusion-identification-1-answers/

In the lesson on bi-conditionals (Lesson 7 of 18 in Advanced Logic), we are told that "Alan attends the meeting only if Chris attends the meeting" is expressed as "A>C." I get that. But don't we need another expression that says in effect, "otherwise [or else], Alan does not attend"?

Admin Note: https://classic.7sage.com/lesson/advanced-bi-conditionals/

Given the rule, "If G and S are both in, then W is in," I understand the contrapositive is "If W is out, then G is out or S is out (since both G and S cannot be in). But why doesn't the contrapositive also allow for the possibility that G and S are BOTH out (as well as W being out)?