The type of the reasoning used by the author in the passage is Deductive reasoning. Thus, option (D) is correct.
Deductive reasoning is a form of logic where a conclusion is derived from the agreement of several premises that are often taken to be true. A conclusion in deductive reasoning is based on the agreement of several assumptions that are typically accepted as true.
According to the given passage, Lifeboat Ethics, by Garrett Hardin, the author draws the conclusion that population growth will result in a depletion of natural resources.
The basis for this conclusion is the degradation of natural resources required for human life caused by India's population expansion. Therefore, it can be concluded that option (D) is correct.
Learn more about Lifeboat Ethics here:
https://brainly.com/question/8376758
#SPJ2
Your question is incomplete, but most probably the full question was....
Every human born constitutes a draft on all aspects of the environment: food, air, water, forests, beaches, wildlife, scenery and solitude. Food can, perhaps, be significantly increased to meet a growing demand. But what about clean beaches, unspoiled forests, and solitude? If we satisfy a growing population's need for food, we necessarily decrease its per capita supply of the other resources needed by men. India, for example, now has a population of 600 million, which increases by 15 million each year. This population already puts a huge load on a relatively impoverished environment. The country's forests are now only a small fraction of what they were three centuries ago, and floods and erosion continually destroy the insufficient farmland that remains. Every one of the 15 million new lives added to India's population puts an additional burden on the environment, and increases the economic and social costs of crowding. However, humanitarian our intent, every Indian life saved through medical or nutritional assistance from abroad diminishes the quality of life for those who remain, and for subsequent generations. If rich countries make it possible, through foreign aid, for 600 million Indians to swell to 1.2 billion in a mere 28 years, as their current growth rate threatens, will future generations of Indians thank us for hastening the destruction of their environment? Will our good intentions be sufficient excuse for the consequences of our actions?
