PT2.S2.Q11 - If the forest continues

SSBM1000

Can someone explain why the correct answer to this question is B? I'm completely stumped on this, as D seems like the right answer to me.

Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [first set of words]"

cooljon525-1-1

I messed this one up also. My problem was translating the politician's argument into logic:

It comes out to Deforestation stopped----> Koala survives

The biologist: Koala survives ------> Forest does not continue to disappear at present pace

Since saving the forest is necessary for the biologist, B doesn't hurt it. But since saving the forest is sufficient in the politician's argument to lead to koala surviving, B contradicts this.

When using logical indicators for the politician's argument, It kept leading me with the sufficient and necessary reversed. If someone else can pitch in and explain the mechanical way of translating the politician's statement, I would greatly appreciate it. #help

SSBM1000

@cooljon525 said:
I messed this one up also. My problem was translating the politician's argument into logic:

It comes out to Deforestation stopped----> Koala survives

The biologist: Koala survives ------> Forest does not continue to disappear at present pace

Since saving the forest is necessary for the biologist, B doesn't hurt it. But since saving the forest is sufficient in the politician's argument to lead to koala surviving, B contradicts this.

When using logical indicators for the politician's argument, It kept leading me with the sufficient and necessary reversed. If someone else can pitch in and explain the mechanical way of translating the politician's statement, I would greatly appreciate it. #help

Thank you for your help, but I'm still confused. I think I might be misunderstanding the problem, but I still don't see how B fits with the Biologist's argument, though I think I understand how it works for the Politician's.

Hopeful9812

I kind of took a different approach with question 11. Here is my thought process.

Biologists:
Forest continues to disappear -> Koala will approach extinction

Politician:
Save Koala -> Stop making the forests disappear.

The key to recognize is that the biologist is talking about forests disappearing at the present pace, so when I saw this I eliminated D and E quickly because I don’t know what biologists will think if the pace is slowed because all it said was at the current/present pace. C I eliminated because biologist is specifically talking about forests disappearing so the focus on reforestation seems off. That left me with A and B.

A was tempting and I incorrectly selected this because it sounds consistent with what the biologist said. But it is also in agreement with the politician by the contrapositive. So politician said:
Save Koala -> Stop making the forests disappear.
/Stop making the forests disappear aka Deforestation continues -> /Save Koalas, I know this sounds messy but I saw this contrapositive as more so consistent with A. So since it was consistent with the politician’s claim, I eliminated A.

B basically says:
/Forests continue to disappear -> /Save Koala

This is consistent with the biologists’ claim because that claim was: Forest continues to disappear -> Koala will approach extinction. So by negating the sufficient, the rule does not trigger and the necessary could or could not occur.
B is not consistent with the politician’s claim because by the politician’s claim is Save Koala -> Stop making the forests disappear. The contrapositive of B would say: Save Koala -> Forests continue to disappear. So this is why AC B is correct.

Hope this was useful and hope my thought process was correct/helpful!