Hi SLF,
Answer choice (B) establishes a principle to which the ethicist's reasoning does conform, but only in part. Indeed, the ethicist claims that an argument for preserving nature that emphasizes nature's moral value (i.e. a specific characteristic of nature) is vulnerable to logical objections. She never concludes, however, that moral value does not provide a sufficient reason for preserving nature. Just because an
argument emphasizing moral value is not sufficiently strong does not mean that moral value is an insufficiently strong reason for preserving nature.
Furthermore, answer choice (B) does not conform to second part of the ethicist's argument, namely, that the argument for preserving nature should appeal to its beauty, because the latter is less vulnerable to logical objections. In short, the principle in answer choice (B) conforms to the ethicist's recommendation regarding what we
shouldn't do (appeal to nature's moral value alone), but fails to proscribe what we
should do (appeal to a characteristic that is less vulnerable to objections, such as beauty). I guess that wasn't as short as I had hoped... oh well. Let me know if it makes sense, though
Thanks!
