The correct answer is B. The potential for the results to improve the world is not evident.
Explanation:
Utilitarianism is a philosophical perspective ad theory that focuses on increasing the well-being and happiness of individuals while decreasing suffering or pain. Also, for utilitarians, the practical uses and results prevail over other factors. Due to this, utilitarians might argue science is not valuable because a big part of it is understanding how natural phenomenons work, and this might be considered to lack practical uses or to help the world improve. Thus, the reason for a utilitarian to argue against the value of science is that "the potential for the results to improve the world is not evident".
Explanation:
<em>1</em><em>.</em><em> </em><em>Listin</em><em>g</em><em> </em><em>books</em>
<em>2</em><em>.</em><em> </em><em>Lis</em><em>ting</em><em> </em><em>maga</em><em>zines</em><em> </em><em>or</em><em> </em><em>journ</em><em>al</em><em> </em><em>ar</em><em>ticle</em>
<em>3</em><em>.</em><em> </em><em>Lis</em><em>ting</em><em> </em><em>web</em><em>site</em>
