[email protected] 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 non-economic 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 non-economic 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 non-economic justification for doing so.

[spoiler]
The OA given is B.[/spoiler] In this option, I did not get the answer choice 'in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment' this part does not go with the stimulus given. Really difficult to get the answer out of all the options given man.

Option A: Opposite answer choice.

Option B: as claimed before

Option C: Extreme choice because of the word 'most' being used.

Option D: Again 'in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.' the same part is harassing me.

Option E: First part of the option is not supported by the stimulus...


Please guyzzz help in understanding this question.