Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting features of the environment, arguing that there are no eco...

Can each sentence please be diagrammed so I can understand how we arrived at answer choice B. While instincts told me it was with B or D because of the rules and nature of the set of facts, I couldn't get the flow. I attempted diagramming this way: Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting features of the environment, E-some-QP arguing that there are no economic benefits to be gained from forests, mountains, or wetlands that no longer exist. E ==> not EB 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. E-some-WDF I'm uncertain if I made the argument flow correctly based on my diagramming and also wast certain if I should have diagrammed "even if the economic costs of doing so were outweighed by the economic costs of not doing so" although "outweighed by indicates to me there is cause and effect. With what I diagramed I ended up with the inference: OP- some - E==>not EB