Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership

Categories

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

JCEM2021JCEM2021 Core Member
edited May 2021 in Logical Reasoning 22 karma

I cannot for the life of me understand how to arrive at the answer to this question. I mapped the biologist's reasoning as Deforestation>/Koalas, and I mapped the politician's as K>/Deforestation. So in order for the politician to be right, we must meet the sufficient condition; the only way we can know the politician is wrong is if we either have K>Deforestation or (the contrapositive being wrong) Deforestation>K. I didn't see either of these options, and indeed, the correct answer choice says /Deforestation>/Koalas, which IS the correct contrapositive (so it agrees with the politician).

Thank you!

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

Show Related Discussions

Comments

  • lsat more like lsad lsat more like lsad Member
    4 karma

    I am new to 7sage, I don't see the question though

  • tahurrrrrtahurrrrr Member
    1106 karma

    Can you please put the Pt/section/question # so we can look it up?

  • Ashley2018-1Ashley2018-1 Alum Member
    2249 karma

    I think I found your question. Google is the best lol. It’s the one about koalas and deforestation, from prep test 2, section 2, 11

    Biologist: forest continues to disappear—-> koalas approach extinction

    Politician: “all that is needed” to save the koala is to stop deforestation so he is saying stopping deforestation is sufficient or enough to save the koala so

    /deforestation——> save koala (/extinct)

    We have to find a claim that is consistent with the biologists, meaning that it could be true, but contradicts the politician’s, or it cannot be true

    A.) deforestation continues + koala extinct, consistent with biologist but also consistent with politician’s since it negates the sufficient and the rule falls away, leaving it possible the koala is still saved

    B.) if deforestation is stopped, then the sufficient condition in the biologist’s claim falls away so consistent but it contradicts the politician’s statement: if /deforestation, then the koalas are supposed to survive but this choice renders that false.

    C.) also consistent with politician’s statement because if reforestation continues then deforestation has stopped

    D and E do not contradict the politician’s statement

Sign In or Register to comment.