PT2.S2.Q11 - If the forest continues to disappear...

Bauer Johann-1

I can understand why answer choices A, C, D, and E are incorrect. What I can not quite understand is why B is right. Any thoughts?

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

sh.francis

This is a fun quirky one.

Biologist: Forest continues to disappear at present pace --> koala approaches extinction.
Politician: Stop deforestation --> save koala

I suspect the tricky bit here is the translation of the politician's statement into conditional logic. Especially if you are using the core curriculum techniques to mechanically translate "All that is needed to save the koala is to stop deforestation", it is tempting to reverse the sufficient and necessary terms.

The sufficient condition is actually stop deforestation because of the referential phrase "all that" is referring to stop deforestation.

I think the remainder of the question should be clear now,.

Answer choice B gives you:

Deforestation stopped --> koala extinct

This isn't inconsistent with the biologist's statement because continuing disappearance of the forest is a sufficient, not a necessary condition. Something else can cause koala extinction even if deforestation is stopped.

B is not consistent with the politicians statement because the same sufficient condition gives you a different outcome.

Bauer Johann-1

Thank you!