The politician says that Koala can be saved by stopping deforestation , D is the option which reflects that reducing it can help in saving Koals.
I am doing OG10
and am almost a 100% sure that I saw it there. Let me check once am back home and will confirm the source .
Nah man, its not in the OG 10th
Ed. Just went thru it. However, B does make sense.
Politician's claim - Stop (not slow) deforestation and this will result in preventing extinction of the koalas. X will lead to Y. Not really a flexible argument. Guaranteeing Y if X happens or another way to look at it would be to say that if X does not happen then Y possibly cannot happen. i.e. Inverse of the original.
check this out if you are confused about inverse statements:
http://www.regentsprep.org/Regents/math ... de=relcond
the important thing to remember is that the inverse statement "does not necessarily have the same truth value as the original conditional statement"
Biologist's claim - if the pace of deforestation continues, koalas will approach extinction. Does not say anything about what will happen if the pace slows. Guarantees nothing but saying that if pace continues, it will surely make the koalas extinct. Assumes other factors at play if pace does not continue
. Less rigid of an argument.
B) Deforestation has stopped - according to the Politican, koalas should be saved..but they are not. Deforestation has stopped but the koalas still become extinct. consistent w/ the biologist's argument.