Passage Summary: The author argues that since you only have duties toward things that have rights, and trees don't have rights, you don't have a duty to stop cutting them down.

Conclusion: There is no obligation to refrain from cutting down trees.

Reasoning: An obligation to an entity exists only if that entity has rights; trees do not have rights, so there is no obligation to them.

Analysis: The argument relies on a conditional chain: Obligation to Trees → Trees have Rights. Since trees don't have rights, the author concludes there is no obligation *not to cut them down*. The 'gap' here is the assumption that an obligation *not to cut down trees* must be an obligation *to the trees themselves*. It's possible we have an obligation to other humans, or to the planet as a whole, to preserve trees. The argument must assume that the only way an obligation regarding trees could exist is if it were an obligation owed directly to the trees.