LSAT 2 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q11

LR Question 11 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: “If the forest continues to disappear at its present pace…

QUESTION TYPE: Must be True

ANALYSIS: This is a very good example of the difference between sufficient and necessary conditions. The biologist says that slowing deforestation is a necessary condition to keeping the Koala alive. DF no K and (contrapositive) K survives less DF

The politician mistakenly believes the biologist is claiming that stopping deforestation would be a sufficient condition for keeping the Koala alive. But there are other ways the Koala’s could die apart from deforestation. Poaching perhaps?

Also note that biologist said “slowed” and the politician said “stopped.”

Remember that we are looking for something that contradicts the politician but that doesn’t contradict the biologist.

___________

1. This is consistent with both of their statements.
2. CORRECT. The politician would say this is impossible, but the biologist did not say this was impossible.
3. This is consistent with both.
4. This works with both statements. The biologist only made a claim about deforestation at the current pace.
5. This is not necessarily inconsistent with the politician’s claim, as he talked about stopping deforestation.

Recap: The question begins with “”If the forest continues to disappear at its present pace”. It is a Must be True question. Learn how to master LSAT MBT questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.