Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting features of the environment, arguing that there are no eco...
nizhoniSeptember 12, 2019
Why I didn't choose E
I think this was just a tricky one (the information and its implications are nuanced). I was stuck between B and E without diagramming and ultimately decided to eliminate E because of the word "sound". It threw me off because I thought that nature having "intrinsic value" was not a very "sound noneconomic justification" b/c the passage never explained WHY intrinsic value was indeed valuable enough to argue protection of the environment.
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
You are absolutely right about "sound" being the problem with answer choice E.
All we are given by the passage are two different viewpoints. Keep in mind that these are not facts.
Some environmentalists: If we destroy nature, we won't be able to make money from it. Many environmentalists: Nature has intrinsic value, so we should preserve it even if it costs us money.
We are given no further information about whose view is better, so we cannot infer if either argument is sound. Sound is a subjective term. I may find an argument to be sound, but you may not.
B is correct, because it sticks to the facts of the passage. Both points of view are in favor of preservation, but one has non-economic reasoning.
