- Deforestion continues at present rate, Koala will approach extincintion
- Stop deforestation and koala will be save (not be extinct)
We want a statement that agrees the biologist, and disagrees with the politician
Which one of the following statements is consistent with the biologistâ€™s claim but not with the politicianâ€™s claim?
(A) Deforestation continues and the koala becomes extinct.
- consistent with both claims
(B) Deforestation is stopped and the koala becomes extinct.
Deforestation stopped --> Koala becomes extincit
Koala not extinct --> Deforestation not stopped (consistent with biologist's claim)
This is consistent with the biologist's claim and not consistent with the politian. The biologist says that if deforestation is not slowed down, koala will become extinct. However, it does not have to take a complete stop to achieve the aim of preserving the koalas. However, it contradicts the politician's claim that stopping deforestation will save the koalas.
(C) Reforestation begins and the koala survives.
- Reforestation is not the same as slowing down or stopping deforestation.
(D) Deforestation is slowed and the koala survives.
Deforestation is slowed --> Koala survives
Koala does not survive --> Deforestation is not slowed
- Consistent with biologists claim that slowing deforestation will help koala survive. But it does not contradict the politicain as well as it says koala will not survive if deforestation is not slowed (i.e. not stopped or faster)
(E) Deforestation is slowed and the koala approaches extinction
- does not agree with biologist
B it is.
Not sure if i'm right, just my thoughts as to how this should be solved.