BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Environmentalists confused me.

Expert replies
by saurabhmahajan » Tue Sep 28, 2010 11:11 pm
Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting features of the environment, arguing that
there are no economic benefits to be gained from forests, mountains, or wetlands that no longer exist.
Many environmentalists claim that because nature has intrinsic value it would be wrong to destroy such
features of the environment, even if the economic costs of doing so were outweighed by the economic
costs of not doing so.

Which one of the following can be logically inferred from the passage?

(A) It is economically imprudent to exploit features of the environment.

(B) Some environmentalists appeal to a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.

(C) Most environmentalists appeal to economic reasons in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.

(D) Many environmentalists provide only a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.

(E) Even if there is no economic reason for protecting the environment, there is a sound noneconomic justification for doing so.
Thanks and regards,
Saurabh Mahajan

I can understand you not winning,but i will not forgive you for not trying.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by goyalsau » Tue Sep 28, 2010 11:33 pm
I think it should be B.
Saurabh Goyal
[email protected]
-------------------------


EveryBody Wants to Win But Nobody wants to prepare for Win.
Join the discussion

by ashokkadam » Wed Sep 29, 2010 12:32 am
@Saurabh, This is a inference type question. This is same as asking- Which of the choices must be true? The last part of the stimulus helps us to figure out that choice E is the statement which must be true or can be inferred. Hope that helps.
saurabhmahajan wrote:Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting features of the environment, arguing that
there are no economic benefits to be gained from forests, mountains, or wetlands that no longer exist.
Many environmentalists claim that because nature has intrinsic value it would be wrong to destroy such
features of the environment, even if the economic costs of doing so were outweighed by the economic
costs of not doing so.

Which one of the following can be logically inferred from the passage?

(A) It is economically imprudent to exploit features of the environment.

(B) Some environmentalists appeal to a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.

(C) Most environmentalists appeal to economic reasons in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.

(D) Many environmentalists provide only a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.

(E) Even if there is no economic reason for protecting the environment, there is a sound noneconomic justification for doing so.
Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins.
Join the discussion

by saurabhmahajan » Wed Sep 29, 2010 12:39 am
OA : B
Thanks and regards,
Saurabh Mahajan

I can understand you not winning,but i will not forgive you for not trying.
Join the discussion