-
umaa
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 727
- Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 9:32 pm
- Thanked: 8 times
- Followed by:1 members
Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting features of the enviromnent, arguing that there are no economic benefits to be gained from forests, mountains, or wetlands that n 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 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 disability 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
Which 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 disability 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
