#11 - If the forest continues to disappear at its present

[RayMiller]

This question is about koala's and deforestation. I attempted but selected the incorrect answer and came back to it, but still can't seem to understand why B.

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi Ray,

Can you tell us a bit more about how you approached this question and which answer you selected? It would be helpful to know your train of thought here.. it's a confusing question for sure. Keep in mind that the phrase "consistent with" - in LSAT jargon - means the same as "could be true." In other words, your goal is to select a statement that could be true given the biologist's claim, but cannot be true in the context of the politician's claim.

Thanks!

[RayMiller]

Yes :/

Biologist- Current Deforestion Slowed Koala
or Deforestation no Koala

I really wasn't positive. Especially once I got to the answer choices.

Politician - Koala no Deforestation

I selected .D

[Steve Stein]

The biologist says that if deforestation continues, the koala will approach extinction:

deforestation continues koala approaches extinction
Koala NOT nearing extinction NO deforestation

The politician thinks that stopping deforestation is sufficient (that is, all that is needed) to save the koala:

NO deforestation Koala saved

The question asks for the answer choice that has no inconsistency with the biologist claim, but is inconsistent with the politician's claim. Answer choice B provides a scenario (NO deforestation, Koala NOT saved) that is inconsistent with the politician's claim--according to the politician, if deforestation was stopped, the koala should have been saved.

The biologist's claim is not inconsistent with this scenario, because according to the biologist, "NO deforestation" is not sufficient to arrive at any conclusion.

I hope that's helpful! Let me know whether it's clear--thanks!

~Steve

[RayMiller]

I understand with your explanation but when I was diagrammed I was confused by ”needed” in the politician's statement. I understand in conditional reasoning that need is a indicator of what's necessary but I then I reread it to mean the deforestation needs to end in order to save koalas.

Ugh...how do I get out of doing this? Do I just stick treating these sentences like a puzzle? Meaning, what follows suf indicator is sufficient, what follows necessary indicator is necessary. And apply without, unless, until, except rule when appropriate?

[Steve Stein]

Relying on indicators is often effective--otherwise, you can either rephrase the statement or reason your way through it.

The politician claims that putting a stop to deforestation is all that is needed to save the koala--in other words, putting a stop to deforestation is sufficient to save the koala. When the author says "this is all that has to be done" to achieve something, that means it is sufficient to achieve that thing.

I hope that's helpful! Let me know--thanks!

~Steve

[RayMiller]

Yes definitely understood. Now, let's see how it goes in application.

Thank you so much

[r miller]

there were a lot of great, helpful answers given to ray for this classic, somewhat difficult question. steve followed up nikki by giving you some diagramming help. i'd like to go back and further emphasize nikki's answer.

of course, the problem is the way in which the question stem is formulated.

getting away a bit from the straight or formulaic formal logic, it is often helpful to support that with some intuitive understanding - what we sometimes call abstract reasoning. think about what's being said by each speaker in the context of what various answer choices mean. specifically, it's helpful to realize that you are looking for something that is CONSISTENT with what a speaker said. it needn't be absolutely true or follow exactly, or, as nikki said, you are asked for what could be true. i like to say it would follow logically, although we want to stay away from the suggestion here of a causal idea. it would follow logically from what the speaker is saying.....

hope that also helps.

good luck!

[GLMDYP]

Hi Powerscore!
Just wondering how does (B) fit into the description that "consistent with the biologist's claim but not with the politician's claim".
Thanks!

[David Boyle]

Hi Powerscore!
Just wondering how does (B) fit into the description that "consistent with the biologist's claim but not with the politician's claim".
Thanks!

Hello GLMDYP,

There could be other things, for the biologist, that could hurt the koala. The biologist just says that deforestation will hurt, but other things could hurt too, for all we know. But for the politician, **all that's needed** to save the koala is stopping deforestation. So (B) is consistent with both claims.

David