E?

imo:B
(i think you have by mistake typed "disability" instead of "defensibility")

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.



A. It is economically imprudent to exploit features of the environment -too strong.The stimulus doesnt conclude this.

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

As some environmentalists says-no economic benefit
many environmentalists says-wrong to do because of intrinsic values even if it has economic benefits.

Thus from both we can infer that some appeal to noneconomic justification.


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

too strong.And stimulus talks about "many" and not" most"

D. Many environmentalists provide only a noneconomic justification in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment.
again too strong.They dont provide only noneconomic justification

E. Even if there is no economic reason for protecting the environment, there is a sound noneconomic justification for doing so-

we cannot conclude there is no economic reason.
too strong again.


thanks.

IMO B

OA B

Cause A is very general and it is very hard too.

It seems to me that the right answer is B