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 "