Ethicist: Many environmentalists

Answer choices

1. A

   Wrong Evidence7% picked this

   An argument in favor of preserving nature will be less open to logical objections if it avoids the issue of

   Both arguments for preserving nature address the issue of what makes nature worth preserving. One appeals to beauty and one appeals to moral value.

   7%
2. B

   Too Weak8% picked this

   If an argument for preserving nature emphasizes a specific characteristic of nature and is vulnerable to logical objections, then that characteristic does not provide

   While this supports the point that an argument to preserve nature based on beauty will not be vulnerable to logical objections, but does not apply to an argument based on moral value.

   8%
3. C

   Wrong Conclusion3% picked this

   If it is philosophically disputable whether nature has a certain characteristic, then nature would be more clearly worth preserving if it

   This fails to establish anything about how vulnerable are arguments to preserve nature to logical objections.

   3%
4. D

   Weaken2% picked this

   Anything that has moral value is worth preserving regardless of whether people consider it

   This would make it less likely that an argument to preserve nature based on beauty is less vulnerable to logical objections than one based on moral value.

   2%
5. E

   Correct80% picked this

   An argument for preserving nature will be less open to logical objections if it appeals to a characteristic that can be regarded as a

   Why this is right

   This bridges the gap between an argument appealing to a characteristic that indisputably belongs to nature and being less vulnerable to logical objections.

   Skill tested: Principle-Conform · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   80%