Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Re: CR1000 - The biologist and the politician [#permalink]
10 Feb 2007, 09:51
Honghu, I do try to use the If x, then Y technique for logic CRs. In this example however, the biologist says 'If deforestation continues at its present pace, the Koala will become extinct'. He does not say 'If deforestation continues, the Koala will become extinct'. Given this, don't you think D is right.
The biologist didn't say what is gonna happen if deforestation does not continue at present pace (nonD). In other words, if it slows, E may or may not happen. Both cases would be consistent with his claim.
For the politician, he says if deforestation is stopped then E will not happen. He didn't say if deforestation is not stopped what is gonna happen. If deforestation is slowed, E may or may not happen. Both cases would be consistent with his claim.
In choice D deforestation is slowed, and E did not happen. Consistent with both people's claims.
Does this answers your question?
Keep on asking, and it will be given you;
keep on seeking, and you will find;
keep on knocking, and it will be opened to you.
I just edited my previous post with this bit below. Hope this helps.
If I am the politician and you told me that you slowed deforestation and that the koala survived, I can counter by saying
"I claimed that all one needs to do to save koalas is to stop deforestation. You claim that you saved koalas by slowing deforestation. But you still have not proved that koalas cannot be saved by stopping deforestation. By your own argument, if the koala can be saved by slowin, then its obvious that it can certainly be saved by stopping. What you are saying is in fact consistent with what I claim'
Which one of the following statements is consistent with the biologistâ€™s claim but not with the politicianâ€™s claim?
the answer choices are statements and not outcomes. I think that you've looked at the choices as if they were outcomes and not statements. To test whether 2 statements are consistent, we should examine whether saying them together constitutes a contradiction.
(B) Deforestation is stopped and the koala becomes extinct.
Now imagine the biologist saying this statement together with her first, would she be consistent?
Biologist: â€œIf the forest continues to disappear at its present pace, the koala will approach extinction,â€