“If the forest continues to disappear

Answer choices

1. A

   Both Agree15% picked this

   Deforestation continues and the koala becomes

   If deforestation continues and the koala goes extinct, that is exactly what the biologist predicted — fully consistent with the biologist's claim. It is also consistent with the politician, because the politician's claim is conditional on stopping deforestation, and that did not happen here. We need a scenario that splits the two speakers.

   15%
2. B

   Correct38% picked this

   Deforestation is stopped and the koala

   Why this is right

   This splits them perfectly. Deforestation is stopped — meaning the biologist's "if deforestation continues" trigger never fires, so the biologist's claim is not violated. But the koala goes extinct anyway. That directly contradicts the politician, who said stopping deforestation is all that is needed to save the koala. The koala's extinction here proves there is some other threat the politician failed to consider — exactly the scope-shift gap the politician walked into.

   Skill tested: Must be True · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   38%
3. C

   Both Agree6% picked this

   Reforestation begins and the koala

   Reforestation begins (which is more than just stopping deforestation) and the koala survives. The biologist's claim is not violated (deforestation did not continue). The politician's claim is also satisfied — stopping deforestation here led to the koala being saved. Both speakers are happy with this scenario; we need one that divides them.

   6%
4. D

   Both Agree32% picked this

   Deforestation is slowed and the koala

   Deforestation slowed (not continuing at the present pace) and the koala survived. This is consistent with both: the biologist's "continued deforestation" trigger did not fire, and the politician's claim — stopping is sufficient to save — is at least loosely supported by the survival outcome. Neither speaker is contradicted.

   32%
5. E

   Half Scope10% picked this

   Deforestation is slowed and the koala

   Deforestation slowed and the koala still approached extinction. The biologist talked about what happens if deforestation continues at its present pace — slowing it does not technically violate the prediction (we cannot tell what the biologist would say about a slower pace). But this scenario is not clean either: the politician spoke about stopping deforestation, and slowing is not stopping, so the politician's claim is not directly tested. Choice B is sharper because it actually shows the politician's exact scenario (deforestation stopping) failing.

   10%