Question

\useless creatures\ by richard conniff
improbably, wildlife conservationists now also often hear the call of the useful. along with a large contingent of eco - finance bureaucrats, they try to save threatened habitats by reminding nearby communities of all the benefits they derive from keeping these habitats intact. forests, meadows and marshes prevent floods, supply clean water, provide habitat for species that pollinate crops, put oxygen into the atmosphere and take carbon out, and otherwise make themselves useful. in some cases, conservation groups or other interested parties actually put down cash for these ecosystem services - paying countries, for instance, to maintain forests as a form of carbon sequestration. the argument, in essence, is that we can persuade people to save nature by making it possible for them to sell it. they can take nature to the bank, or at least to the local grocery. they can monetize it. (the new revised version of genesis now says, \god made the wild animals according to their kinds, and he said, let them be fungible.\)
i understand the logic, or at least the desperation, that drives conservationists to this horrible idea. it may seem like the only way to keep whats left of the natural world from being plowed under by unstoppable human expansion and by our insatiable appetite for what appears to be useful. but usefulness is precisely the argument other people put forward to justify destroying or displacing wildlife, and they generally bring a larger and more persuasive kind of green to the argument. nothing you can say about 100 acres in the new jersey meadowlands will ever add up for a politician who thinks a new shopping mall will mean more jobs for local voters (and
use the passage to answer the question.
which of the following would be a way the author could strengthen the last paragraph to make his claim more valid?
(1 point)
adding more real - life examples of the power of wildlife to inspire human imagination
explaining why art, music, poetry, and sports are not useful
adding evidence for how spending time in nature improves mental health
adding a call to action

Explanation:

The passage discusses the idea of wildlife conservation and the argument of "usefulness" in nature. To strengthen the claim, the author should support the idea that wildlife has value beyond just utility. Adding real - life examples of how wildlife inspires human imagination (like in art, stories, etc.) would show a non - utilitarian value, which counters the over - emphasis on "usefulness" for conservation. The other options: explaining art/music etc. as not useful is off - topic; adding mental health evidence is a utilitarian benefit (which the author is critical of over - relying on); a call to action is too vague and doesn't support the claim about the value of "useless" creatures.

Answer:

A. adding more real - life examples of the power of wildlife to inspire human imagination