Max: As evidence mounts showing the terrible changes wrought on the environment by technology, the conclusion that humans must return to a natural way of living becomes irrefutable.
Max's Conclusion
Humans must return to a natural way of living.
Max's Evidence
Look at the terrible changes wrought on the environment by technology.
Cora's Conclusion
Your criticism is misguided. rephrased: It's doesn't make sense to say that humans must return to a natural way of living.
Cora's Evidence
Using technology in ways that create changes to the environment is natural for humans (we've done that for many thousands of years).
Evaluate
Cora is being a little cheeky here, almost committing what we might consider an Equivocation flaw.
Max was using the term "natural way of living" to mean that we would stop relying so much on technology and modernity and get back to being animals connected to the land.
Cora is sort of saying, She's using the word 'natural' to mean something that humans do naturally.
Naturally, no pun intended, the sort of technology humans used on the environment thousands of years ago might be setting fires to certain forests to make a clearing, or redirecting the water from a river into their crops.
The way technology is effecting the environment nowadays is profoundly different, given all the industrial processes and chemicals and emissions that have been invented in just the past 50-100 years.
Goal
Since they're asking how Cora's claim that relates to Max's argument, we can say two things:
1. It's her premise. It supports her conclusion, which rebuts Max's conclusion.
2. She is trying to re-define the term 'natural' to mean something different from what Max was implying.