HELP I can't understand this question no matter where I look.

Comments

• noonawoon Alum Member ⭐

  August 2020 3481 karma

  You can find the correct answer by evaluating which one of these is incompatible with the politician's claim.

  It sounds like the politician is saying that stopping deforestation is sufficient to saving the koala.

  Stop deforestation --> Save koala

  So it sounds like B is incompatible with the politician's claim, because in this case deforestation is stopped but then the koala goes extinct.

  I feel like you can quickly rule out anything about deforestation slowing or continuing because the politician's claim does not address these scenarios, so an answer choice that mentions them couldn't really be incompatible with the politician's statement.
• zkopper12 Free Trial Member

  August 2020 4 karma

  I would disagree noon-- B, to me, sounds incompatible with the Biologists claim. As Stopping Deforestation --> Extinct Koalas.
  Claim of the Biologist; Forest continuing to disappear at its current rate --> Koalas approach Extinction.
  Claim of Politician; all that is needed --> Stop Deforestation --> Save Koalas

  Slowing Deforestation (slower rate) --> Save Koala.
  Is consistent with the Biologist claim, but gives an alternative to the Politicians claim of "all that is needed is to stop deforestation" showing inconsistency with Politicians claim.
• 2 Likes

  noonawoon Alum Member ⭐

  August 2020 edited August 2020 3481 karma

  @zkopper12 B is actually the correct answer

  It is compatible because the biologist is only talking about what happens if deforestation continues. The biologist does not address the statement in B (deforestation stops), so we cannot say that B is incompatible with the biologist's statement.

  In my original answer I only focused on checking what is incompatible because that is quicker and easier than finding what is compatible, but it's definitely important to check both statements
• 1 Like

  01rrache Alum Member

  August 2020 15 karma

  Biologist: Forest Disappear --> koala will approach extinction

  This problem tests your knowledge of sufficient and necessary conditions. Forest disappearing is one of the things that can make a koala approach extinction. But there can be other things as well, such as fires, poaching, etc.

  Politician: /Forest Disappear --> /koala will approach extinction

  So now the question stem wants an answer that is consistent with the biologist and inconsistent with the politician. So we need to prove the biologists claim true.

  What the politician is doing is denying the sufficient, which invalid argument form #2.

  B is the correct answer. /Forest disappear --> koala approach extinction.

  It demonstrates that forest disappearing could happen but doesn't need to. And thats how a sufficient condition should work. We just know that if forest do disappear, then koala's will approach extinction. And it goes against the politician because the politician thinks that if forests DOES NOT disappear then Koalas WILL NOT approach extinction. But in this answer choice Koalas DO.

  Hope this helped at least a little. Good luck!
• 1 Like

  a1ex_682 Alum Member

  August 2020 307 karma

  @noonawoon and @zkopper12 Are you sure about your logical translation for the politician? If a thing is absolutely NEEDED for something to happen, then it should go in the necessary.

  Save koala —> stop deforestation (?)
• 5 Likes

  seriously Alum Member

  August 2020 edited August 2020 199 karma

  The biologist says "If the forest continues to disappear at its present pace, the koala will approach extinction." This diagrams to Forest Disappears --> Koala Extinction.

  The politician says "So all that is needed to save the koala is to stop deforestation." This diagrams to /Forest Disappearance --> /Koala Extinction. The contrapositive of this is Koala Extinction --> Forest Disappearance.

  Basically, the politician reverses the conditional statement used by the biologist. This means that if the koalas go extinct (i.e., the sufficient condition is met), then it must be true that the forest disappeared. Whereas the biologist believes that if the koalas go extinct (i.e., the necessary condition is met), then we know nothing about what happens to the forest.

  I think the best way to think about this question is in terms of Must Be True, Could be True, and Must be False. For something to be "consistent" it can be either a Must Be True or Could Be True answer. For something to be inconsistent, it Must be False. So we're looking for something that Must Be True or Could Be True in the biologist's world, and Must Be False in the politician's world.

  Answer choice explanations:

  (A) "Deforestation continues and the koala becomes extinct"

  - Biologist: This Must Be True under the biologist's claims. The sufficient (Forest Disappears) is 
    met, and the Necessary (Koalas Go Extinct) is therefore triggered. 
  
  - Politician: This Could Be True under the politicians claims. The sufficient condition  (/Forest 
   Disappearance) is not met, so the rule falls away, and then anything can happen!
  

  (B) "Deforestation is stopped and the Koala goes Extinct"

  - Biologist: This could be true under the biologists' claims. The sufficient condition (Forest 
    Disappears) is not met, so the rule falls away, and then anything can happen! 
  
  - Politician: This must be false under under the politician's claims. The sufficient condition 
   (/Forest Disappearance) is met, and therefore it MUST be true, in the politician's world, that 
   the necessary (/Koalas Go Extinct) is met. 
  

  (C) "Reforestation begins and the koala survives"

  - Biologist: This could be true under the biologists' claims. The sufficient condition (Forest 
    Disappears) is not met, so the rule falls away, and then anything can happen! 
  
  - Politician: This must be true under under the politician's claims. The sufficient condition 
   (/Forest Disappears) is met, and therefore it MUST be true, in the politician's world, that the 
   necessary (/Koalas Go Extinct) is met.  
  

  (D) "Deforestation is slowed and the Koala Survives"

   - Biologist: This could be true under the biologists' claims. The sufficient condition (Forest 
    Disappears) is not met, so the rule falls away, and then anything can happen! 
  
  - Politician: The politician doesn't say anything about deforestation slowing, so this could be 
    true under his/her claims.
  

  (E) "Deforestation is slowed and the koala approaches extinction"

   - Biologist: This could be true under the biologists' claims. The sufficient condition (Forest 
    Disappears) is not met, so the rule falls away, and then anything can happen! 
  
  - Politician: The politician doesn't say anything about deforestation slowing, so this could be 
    true under his/her claims.
  

  B is right because it is the only one that is both consistent with the biologist's claims (in that it could be true), and inconsistent with the politician's claims (in that it must be false).

  Hope this helps!
• 1 Like

  99thPercentileOrDieTryin Free Trial Member

  August 2020 652 karma

  It's B.

  Look at the logic of the biologist: if forests disappear at present rate -> koalas approach extinction FDPR->KAE
  and the contrapositive of if not KAE-> not FDPR. This leaves lots of room open for other things to make the koala go extinct.
  While answer choice B states that "deforestation stops and koalas still go extinct", this is still fine with the statement of the biologist because of those many other things that could still take out the koalas.
  Now,looking at the politician's logic, she states: "So all that is needed to save the koala is to stop deforestation." This does not leave room for anything else to be the cause of the koalas' adorable doom. So, if deforestation ceases and the koalas still die out, the logic of the politician's statement is defeated.
  If deforestation stops-> koalas not extinct DFS->K not E
  so, by contrapositive, if KE->not DFS

  B is the correct choice.