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

Dgelf321Dgelf321 Free Trial Member
edited January 2016 in Logical Reasoning 87 karma
I thought this one was worth discussing. I feel as if the diction really invites you to botch the set up. I know for the politician's statement I diagrammed that as SK --> /D (Save Koala, stop deforestation). My initial logic when I see a word like needed or required is to place it in the necessary position -- in fact I did this almost mechanically -- but upon review it occurred to me that "all that is needed" is basically like saying "the only thing you need" which upon further extrapolation becomes "The Only" which introduces sufficient. In any case I still think the answer choices were a bit confusing and I definitely believe the 7sage community would be well-served by taking a look at this must be true question type.

Comments

  • nye8870nye8870 Alum ⭐
    1749 karma
    You picked out a good one... I felt the "term shifts" presented the most problems for the incorrect AC's.
  • nye8870nye8870 Alum ⭐
    1749 karma
    The biologist logically asserts that the K will "approach" extinction not (ultimately/for sure) become extinct (like AC-A says).
  • nye8870nye8870 Alum ⭐
    edited August 2015 1749 karma
    @Dgelf321 Please let me think of it this way: All that is needed to get the batter out (save the koala) is one more strike (stop deforestation).
    What I really understand about the baseball scene is: One more strike is “sufficient” to “necessarily” get the batter out. One more strike --> Batter out. Another way, to get the batter out, is to have him hit a fly ball and an outfielder catches it. Therefore, one more strike is just one way to get him out. If he gets out, we have no idea how it happened. If a strike is thrown that is enough to get him out.
    OK. So back to the Koala’s. The politician says : ~deforestation --> Save Koalas (which is inconsistent with AC-B which says stop deforestation --> ~Save Koalas. But it is (as the stem also asks us to do) consistent with biologist who says Deforestation --> ~save koalas. Here (I think) is the annoying part. For this question “consistent” turns out simply to be “does NOT contradict”. Additionally, just like the batter getting out (koalas not saved), there is no way of know whether a strike was thrown, (deforestation kept up or was stopped).
    I gave this goofy question a lot of analysis and for me it's been enough to convince me AC-B is correct. However, I would love for somebody else to weigh in, because it sure seemed trickier than most (and I thought the earlier PTs did not throw in the harder questions until later in the section).
Sign In or Register to comment.