Critical Reasoning

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.



Please Explain. Really Very Tough huh!

What does this mean:

"justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features "

Well I saw on 1 post that tells the meaning of questioning the exploitation


"Well if some people are "defending" exploitation of the environment, then, yes, the environmentalists are definitely "questioning the defensibility" of that position.
"

But I believe this is wrong because "if I am defending something then how am I question my own defense part"


I reread the sentence

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


and according to me "Some environmentalists gave noneconomic justification when they were questioned why they are defensing exploiting features of environment"

But the language doesn't seems to be friendly specially word 'IN' this phrase justification in questioning



It should be justification ON/UPON questioning. Any thoughts on this part?


I really need help in this.

Instructors Can you please help me.

vishalwin wrote: What does this mean:

"justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features "

Some people believe that it is valid to exploit the environment, and they defend this position by claiming that there is an economic gain to do so. The environmentalists, on the other hand, feel it is legitimate to question or attack this defense by pointing to the noneconomic benefits of the environment. This notion is captured here: 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