Some environmentalists question the prudence of exploiting features of the environment, arguing that there are no eco...
DeniannOctober 18, 2013
Clarification
I selected A for this question because I focused more on the economic benefits/non-benefits to be gained from the environment.
Is the correct answer B because of the "intrinsic value" of nature mentioned in the passage? Would the "intrinsic value" represent the non-economic value mentioned in the answer choice?
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
The stimulus gives us two "some" statements about environmentalists. Remember that "many" is represented by "some." "Some" is at least one, possibly all. The first statement tells us that some environmentalists "question the prudence of exploiting features of the environment" because there are no economic benefits to non-existent environments. The second statements tells us that some environmentalists believe that it is "wrong to destroy such features of the environment" even if it were the case that the "economic costs of doing so were outweighed by the economic costs of not doing so" because nature has "intrinsic value." Therefore, the second group of environmentalists cited have given a non-economic reason as to why the environment should not be destroyed, whereas the first group of environmentalists have given an economic reason as to why the environment should not be exploited.
We have the first statement:
E-some-QPEE QPEE-some-E (remember, quantity statements don't have contrapositives)
And the second statement:
E-some-WDEIV WDEIV-some-E
We know that we cannot combine two "some" statements.
(A) is incorrect because we do not have sufficient evidence to infer this from the stimulus. Just because "some environmentalists" believe that it is not economically prudent to exploit features of the environment does not necessarily mean that it is actually so. We have insufficient evidence to logically infer this.
(B) is CORRECT because it merely restates how the second group of environmentalists feel. The second statement clearly states that some environmentalists believe that destroying the environment is wrong because of the environment's intrinsic value, regardless of the economic implications.
(C) is incorrect because we have no evidence to back this up, therefore, we cannot logically infer it. We only know that "SOME" environmentalists "appeal to economic reasons in questioning the defensibility of exploiting features of the environment." It cannot be logically inferred that "MOST" do.
(D) is incorrect because we have no evidence allowing us to logically infer that for "many environmentalists," a non-economic justification is the "ONLY" one that they provide. Those environmentalists cited in the passage who offer a non-economic justification may or may not provide others, as well. We do not have enough information to logically infer this.
(E) is incorrect because we do not know whether or not the non-economic justification given by the environmentalists cited in the passage is a sound justification or not. This cannot be logically inferred from the passage.
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have any other questions.
yababio May 21, 2015
Theres no video
NazMay 21, 2015
There is no need for a video explanation to this question since it has no major visual components. Please refer to the written explanation above for a breakdown of the problem.
Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
