关于充分必要条件题LSAT-2-2-11

echochen

“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.（B）

(E) Deforestation is slowed and the koala approaches extinction.

我的思路：biologist的推理过程If the forest continues to disappear at its present pace（deforestation)－＞the koala will approach extinction

而politician的推理过程：stop deforestation　－＞save the koala

它是生物学家逻辑推理的否命题，原命题成立否命题不一定成立．故我选Ａ，而Ｂ的推理过程符合politician

blackhorse

我的理解和你不一样。

原文要找一个选项和biologist一致，但和politician不一致。

B正好说明了虽然Deforestation is stopped 但是 koala 还是 extinct。符合biologist，但不符合politician。

而A是与两个人都一致了。

lawyer_1

is consistent with 的意思是：不违背。而不是：相同，一致。consistent: a consistent argument or idea doesnot have any parts that do not match other parts

echochen

谢谢版主.我明白了