Conclusion: It is premature to conclude that telepathy is an alternative means of communication.

Can anyone explain why (A) is the answer? In what part of the premise does the author points to "the inadequacy of evidence for the opposite view?"

Admin note: edited title.

Biologist's argument: DF (deforestation continues at its present pace) -> KAE (the koala will approach extinction)

Politician's argument: /DF (stop deforestation) -> /KAE (save the koala)

So the politician's argument is a mistaken negation of the biologist's argument.

(A) is wrong because we do not know whether deforestation continues at its "present pace" so we do not know whether this is consistent with the biologist's claim.

(B) is right because even though deforestation is stopped, the koala could go extinct because deforestation could have stopped as a result of complete destruction of forests.

(C) is wrong because no one talks about reforestation.

(D) is wrong because it is consistent with the politician's argument rather than the biologist's

(E) is wrong because the biologist's argument says that the koala does not approach extinction only if deforestation does not continue at its present pace

Is my explanation correct for this question? Could anyone add explanation for this question? Thanks

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of PTx.Sx.Qx. Existing threads on PT2.S2.Q11: (1); (2)

Can anyone explain how is the word "selfish" is used in this stimulus? I don't see the difference between the uses of the term.

Admin note: edited title (please specify which section it's from!)

Can anyone explain the stimulus and why (E) is the answer for this question? I just don't get this one.