Passage Summary: The author argues that because art is always beautiful and educational, and nature is also beautiful and educational, nature is a form of art.

Conclusion: The natural world should be classified as a work of art.

Reasoning: All art possesses the qualities of being beautiful and instructive, and since the natural world also possesses these two qualities, it must be art.

Analysis: This argument suffers from a classic formal logic error known as 'affirming the consequent.' The author establishes that being beautiful and instructive are necessary traits for art, but then mistakenly treats them as sufficient traits to guarantee something is art. Just because every dog has four legs doesn't mean every four-legged creature is a dog. Look for an answer choice that identifies this confusion between necessary and sufficient conditions.