Final answer:
The student's question inaccurately describes a commensalism relationship, since in commensalism, one organism benefits while the other is unaffected. The correct term for the described interaction, where one species is harmed and the other unaffected, is likely amensalism rather than commensalism. Hence, the scenario in the question is false.
Step-by-step explanation:
The student's question describes an interaction where one organism negatively impacts the growth or survival of another organism, without being affected itself, as either true or false. This scenario most closely describes a commensalism relationship in biology, one of several types of symbiotic relationships. However, in a commensalism relationship, while one species benefits from the interaction, the other species is not harmed or hindered; this is a key difference from the scenario described in the question which implies that the second organism is indeed harmed or hampered. If the second species is harmed while the first is unaffected, the relationship would be better defined as amensalism. Therefore, based on the definition of commensalism provided, the scenario described in the question is false.
It is important to contrast this with another concept in ecology known as the competitive exclusion principle, which states that no two species can coexist in the same niche when they compete for exactly the same resources at the same time and place. The outcome of this intense form of interspecific competition may lead to the extinction of one species or might drive the evolution of specialized traits to reduce direct competition, a process known as resource partitioning.