Text 1: Environmental ethicist Dr. Helen Long advocates for wilderness preservation. "Nature has intrinsic value independent of human use," Long argues. "Wild places deserve protection for their own sake. Anthropocentric valuation underestimates nature's worth."
Text 2: Pragmatist philosopher Dr. Paul Chen questions intrinsic value arguments. "Claims about nature's intrinsic value are still human value judgments," Chen observes. "We cannot escape anthropocentrism. More effective arguments connect preservation to human welfare—health, climate stability, future generations."
What strategic concern does Chen raise about Long's approach?
That nature doesn't exist
That intrinsic value claims may be less persuasive than welfare-based arguments
That preservation is never justified
That philosophy cannot address environmental questions
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. Chen suggests human welfare arguments are "more effective" than intrinsic value claims. This is a strategic critique—Long may be right but less persuasive.
- Evidence: Chen: "More effective arguments connect preservation to human welfare."
- Reasoning: Practical persuasion may require different framing.
- Conclusion: Chen offers a pragmatic alternative with greater persuasive potential.
Choice A is incorrect because Chen discusses nature preservation. Choice C is incorrect because Chen supports preservation via different arguments. Choice D is incorrect because Chen engages philosophically.