Question

adapted from our vanishing wildlife
by william t. hornaday
for educated, civilized man to exterminate a valuable wild species of living things is a crime. it is a crime against his own children, and posterity
no man has a right, either moral or legal, to destroy or squander an inheritance of his children that he holds for them in trust. and man, the wasteful and greedy spendthrift that he is, has not created even the humblest of the species of birds, mammals, and fishes that adorn and enrich this earth. with all his wisdom, man has not evolved and placed here so much as a ground squirrel, a sparow, or a clam. it is true that he has juggled with the wild horses and sheep, the goats and the swine, and produced some hardy breeds that can withstand his abuse without going down before it: but as for species, he has not yet created and placed here even so much as a protozoan
the wild things of this earth are not ours, to do with as we please. they have been given to us in trust, and we must account for them to the generations which will come after us and audit our accounts
which detail from the passage best supports the idea that man has no right to exterminate wildlife?
a. nature is more powerful than man.
b. wildlife must be preserved for future generations.
c. man has herded some animals like horses and sheep.
d. nature is the \legal\ owner of wildlife.
reset next question

Explanation:

The passage emphasizes that wildlife is given to us in trust and we are accountable to future generations. Option B directly relates to the preservation for future generations, which supports the idea that man has no right to exterminate wildlife. Option A about nature's power is not the main point here. Option C is about man - herding some animals but not relevant to the right to exterminate. Option D's claim about nature being the "legal" owner is not as strongly related to the moral and generational aspect as Option B.

Answer:

B. Wildlife must be preserved for future generations.