Question

"Useless Creatures"
by Richard Conniff
Improbably, wildlife conservationists now also oftenhear the call of the useful. Along with a large contingentof eco-finance bureaucrats, they try to save threatenedhabitats by reminding nearby communities of all thebenefits they derive from keeping these habitats intact.Forests, meadows and marshes prevent floods, supplyclean water, provide habitat for species that pollinatecrops, put oxygen into the atmosphere and take carbonout, and otherwise make themselves useful. In somecases, conservation groups or other interested partiesactually put down cash for these ecosystem services—paying countries, for instance, to maintain forests as aform of carbon sequestration. The argument, inessence, is that
we can persuade people to save natureby making it possible for them to sell it
. They can takenature to the bank, or at least to the local grocery. Theycan monetize it. (The new revised version of Genesisnow says, “God made the wild animals according totheir kinds, and he said, ‘Let them be fungible.’ ”)
I understand the logic, or at least the desperation, thatdrives conservationists to this horrible idea. It mayseem like the only way to keep what’s left of the naturalworld from being plowed under by unstoppable humanexpansion and by our insatiable appetite for whatappears to be useful. But usefulness is precisely theargument other people put forward to justify destroyingor displacing wildlife, and they generally bring a largerand more persuasive kind of green to the argument.Nothing you can say about 100 acres in the New JerseyMeadowlands will ever add up for a politician whothinks a new shopping mall will mean more jobs forlocal voters (and contributions to his campaign warchest). Nothing you can say about the value of rhinosfor ecotourism in South Africa will ever matter to awildlife trafficker who can sell their horns for $30,000 apound in Vietnam.
Reprinted by permission of author Richard Conniff
A)
Use the passage to answer the question.
How would the author describe the idea that “wecan persuade people to save nature by making itpossible for them to sell it”?
(1 point)
a false dichotomy, because it presents the
idea that there are two opposite choices
a fallacy, because if people’s motivation is
money, they might sometimes choose money
over preserving nature
a slippery slope, because if people value
money over animals, they might start valuing
money over people
a bias, because choosing the value of nature
over the value of money is a personal
judgment

Answer 1

Answer: b. a fallacy, because if people’s motivation is money, they might sometimes choose money over preserving nature.

The author calls it a “horrible idea” and cites examples (politicians, wildlife traffickers) showing monetary incentives can lead people to favor profit over conservation.