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

Shabooboo101

There should be an explanation video for this question. Makes no sense to me.

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

AmericanInJapan

Oh man this question should be set on fire. But with like, a fake fire, we don't want to use wood, because I hear that if we keep cutting down trees, koalas might go extinct.

Let's take a look carefully at what these two are saying. The biologist comes in and says "seriously, if we keep cutting down trees, these koalas are going to get close to extinction." Idk about you, but I 100% read this in an Australian accent.

The politician smells a political victory and it smells of eucalyptus. "I'VE GOT IT! I'll just stop everyone from cutting the trees and we save the koalas! Right??!??! There's nothing else that could possibly kill them."

The scientist is probably looking at the politician like he had just said you could cure COVID with bleach. Ugh, that's not what I said.

It's actually easier to think of this question as a kind of hybrid between where these two disagree. Where can I say something the politician would go "NO NO that's not right" but the scientist would go "eh that's possible." Consistent in LSATese just means "could be true."

A: No. We have no idea what the politican would think if they keep cutting down trees. We are searching for something that they would yell NO to.

B: Oh sure yeah that'll do it. The politician stops deforestation, smells an election victory, but turns out that it was poachers all along. The politician thought it was sufficient to stop deforestation to save the koalas, but it wasn't. NOOOO

This one is a bit weird because it's also consistent with the scientist. The scientist just says that continuing deforestation would get the koalas close to extinction. We don't know what their feelings are about other alternative ways of koalas dying. So this could be possible. We could ask them, hey is it possible koalas are just going extinct anyways and they could answer yes. We just don't know. Leave it.

C: Nah that's consistent with both of them. The politician would be happy with this.

We know nothing about if deforestation is slowed. For all we know, this would just give the politician the electoral victory.

E: Same with D but the politician would be angry. We again just don't know what they would think because it doesn't oppose their thing of "if we stop it, we win." They didn't stop it, they slowed it.

So B is the correct answer. Save the koalas!