Hi @esther, thanks for your post. Yes, let's diagram the stimulus.
The stimulus here presents facts, not an argument. You are told two things: 1. 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.
You could diagram this as E-some-QPEE (some environmentalists question prudence of exploiting environment)
2. 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 are outweighed by the economic costs of not doing so.
OK, remember that "many" is diagrammed as "some," because it's not synomous with "most."
So you could diagram this as E-some-WD (some environmentalists claim that it is wrong to destroy features of the environment)
Honestly, the diagramming doesn't get you too far on this question. You are asked which answer choice "must be true" given the information presented in the stimulus. This means we have to select an answer that is textually supported. Let's review each option.
(A) There is no textual support in this stimulus for the conclusion that it is "economically impudent" to exploit features of the environment. Eliminate.
(B) This is the correct answer. The first group of environmentalists discussed in the stimulus basically say "you can't benefit economically from nonexistent forests, mountains, or wetlands." The second group of environmentalists refuse to even accept economics as a point of argument - they just say "look, nature has an intrinsic value, and should be preserved for that reason alone, economics be damned." This is textually supported by the stimulus.
(C) We do not know anything about "most." Eliminate.
(D) This answer choice can be eliminated because of the word "only" - we do not know that many environmentalists provide *only* a nonecomonic justification. Maybe they present both a noneconomic and another kind of justification. No textual support for "only," so eliminate.
(E) This reads like a conclusion or an argument. We know that many environmentalists would agree with this statement, but it is not established factually by this stimulus. Because there is no textual support, you should eliminate it.
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any additional questions.
randy-nodarseMay 11, 2019
Is many always considered to mean some? (for diagramming purposes)
RaviMay 11, 2019
@randy-nodarse, yes. 'Many' means 'some' when diagramming.
