PT2.S2.Q11 - Deforestation and Koala extinction

LightLaw99LightLaw99 Core Member
edited April 2022 in Logical Reasoning 12 karma

No getting how the answer choice is right at all.

Comments

  • claremontclaremont Core Member
    590 karma

    The biologist basically says "no forest then no koala." The politician interprets this as "forest then koala."

    Biologist: F → K
    Politician: F → K

    AC B: F, K

    Biologist: Consistent. If you fail the sufficient condition the rule falls away. The forest is necessary for the koala, not sufficient. Perhaps you save the forest but there are poachers or something that kill all the koalas.

    Politician: Inconsistent. The sufficient condition F has been satisfied, so we should also have K.

  • Chris NguyenChris Nguyen Alum Member Administrator Sage ⭐ 7Sage Tutor
    4577 karma

    Hey there!

    Let me try to explain what's going on here. So first of all, we have to make sure that we understand the biologist and the politician are saying two different things.

    The biologist is saying "If the forest keeps on disappearing, so will the koalas."

    What would the biologist think if the forest stopped disappearing? Well, we don't know because he doesn't say. The koalas could be saved, or they could be extinct because of other reasons not mentioned. (Denying the sufficient condition means the rule doesn't apply).

    The Politician is saying something entirely different: If you to stop deforestation, you will save the koalas.

    Here, what if we ask the same thing (what if the forest stopped disappearing?), we get something entirely different. According to the politician, that means that it HAS to be the case that the koalas were saved.

    This is where the discrepancy happens, and why B is correct.

    If deforestations is stopped, and the koala becomes extinct, that is technically consistent with the biologists findings. With his statement, there could be other ways that the koala could still become extinct. Consistent means "doesn't contradict". If a statement doesn't contradict another statement, those statements are consistent with each other.

    However, B would be inconsistent with the politician's statement, because with the politicians, statement, it has to be the case that the koalas will not become extinct. (B) contradicts the politician's statement, meaning that it's inconsistent with the politician's statement.

    Hope this helps!

Sign In or Register to comment.