Deforestation

[x97agarwal]

"If the forest continues to disappear at its present pace, the koala will approach extinction," said the biologist. So all that is needed to save the koala is to stop deforestation," said the politician.
Which one of the following statements is consistent with the biologist’s claim but not with the politician’s claim?
A Deforestation continues and the koala becomes extinct.
B Deforestation is stopped and the koala becomes extinct.
C Reforestation begins and the koala survives.
D Deforestation is slowed and the koala survives.
E Deforestation is slowed and the koala approaches extinction.

Please post explainations along with your answers

[tweety32]

Hmmm tricky one.

I would go for D.

It is consistent with biologist's claim....Deforestation is slowed and koala survives, but the politician talks about stopping deforestation and that being the only way to save the koala. D states that koala is saved even though deforestation wasnt completely stopped

[vineetdixit]

In case of If then logic the only conlcusion that can be drawn is If not then not

i.e.
Two forms that are possible
If x then y - same as question
if not y then not x
In this question if deforestation (forest continues to disappear) then koala extincts
other way if koala not extinct then no deforestation (please keep in mind that no deforestation does not mean reforestation, they are two different things. just like Not day does not mean night it would twilight, morning or else)
so only A fits in

[Udy]

B and E are inconsistant with Biologist's claim. So straight-way out. A is what even politicians will agree.So out. C is something which is inconsistant with politicians claim. Hence D.

[kofokofo]

My choice was D as well because of the "present pace" in the biologist's argument.

Can you please post the QA?

[gmattrap]

Biologist: deforestaion @ current pace => extinction
Poltn: solution-stop deforestation to arrest extinction.

E: slow deforest & kola approaches extinction (inconst wt Biologist).
D: slow deforest & kola survives. Consistent wt Biologist (talks of d need 2 reduce current rate of deforestation); Inconsistent wt d Poltn (proposed stopping of deforestation as d only solution)

[hjafferi]

Imo D

[gmattrap]

D it is.

[Akash03111982]

But D is supporting Politician's claim....we need to refute it...