LSAT逻辑请教高手？？？

bob

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.
答案是B，但是，B怎么能说是跟生物学家的观点consistent呢？B中并没有言及森林continues to disappear的问题。当然，B也没有反对the biologist’s claim。但是，是否“不反对”在逻辑上就可以叫做consistent，而不一定要完全同意才叫consistent？

joywzy

A)politican's opinion
B)it cretainly unfit in the opinoin of politican, but does it fit in that of biologist? yeah! because deforestation is one of the reasons to cause the forest to disappear. Deforestation is a condition made by people, however, others, such as nature fire, and diseases, may also cause the same condition.
C)this chioce is not consistent with both claims
D)consist with politican
E)slowness is not equal to stop. Therefore, it is consitent with that of politican

anneanne

可以这样想，
生物学家: Deforestion是Kaola extinct的一个原因,不排除stop deforestion后Kaola依然extinct的可能.
政治家:只要stop deforestion就可以stop Kaola extinction.也即deforestion是Kaola extinction的唯一原因.
所以,B对

bob

谢谢。