（请教）LSAT－2－2－11

concong

11. “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.

答案B，B和politician的论断矛盾，但是怎么会和biologist的论断一致那？

lawyer_1

is consistent with 是指不矛盾。不冲突。不违背。

Bensontuo

concong 发表于 2004-11-15 11:36
11. “If the forest continues to disappear at its present pace, the koala will approach extinction, ...

B- If disappear ---> Koala die

P- Koala saved ---> stop deforestation
Is consistent with B but not with P

A. Disappear ---> Koala die ( Both consistent )

B. Deforestation is stopped does serve as the other sufficient condition to lead to the extinction of koala; however, there might be the other reason to be sufficient for koala extinct. so its in consistent with the claim of biologist; let us see the claim of politician - apparently, contrapositive of p's claim, koala should be saved, but not die.