03-12-4-19

Editorialist: Some people argue that we have an obligation not to cut down trees. However, there can be no obligation to an entity unless that entity has a corresponding right. So if we have an obligation toward tress, then trees have rights. But trees are not the sort of things that can have rights. Therefore, we have no obligation not to cut down trees.

The editorialist’s argument depends on assuming which of one of the fallowing?

(A)          If an entity has a right to certain treatment, we have an obligation to treat it that way.

(B)          Any entity that has rights also has obligations.

(C)          Only conscious entities are the sort of things that can have rights.

(D)          Avoiding cutting down trees is not an obligation owned to some entity other than trees.

(E)           One does not always have the right to cut down the trees on one’s own property.

答案 D

我知道取非D则结论推不出来，因此为答案。但这道题我还是感觉糊里糊涂的，哪位帮忙分析一下题

What if human being can also serve as another entity which holds right and to which E has obligation.

D, while ruling out other possibilities such as human being, reinforces trees as the only entity and the necessary condition for the whole logic line. Unless(only if) trees have right, E have obligation. Once trees have no right, E have not obligation.