Which argument claims surrogacy is unnatural and opposed by some religions?

• A. Baby Selling
• B. Unnatural and Goes Against Some Religions
• C. Commodifies the Human Body and Treats Children as Property
• D. Risky

Answer: (B)

The core idea being tested is recognizing a critique of surrogacy that appeals to naturalness and religious beliefs. The statement that surrogacy is unnatural and goes against some religions exactly expresses that line of argument: it claims surrogacy violates what is considered natural or divinely affirmed, and that it is rejected within certain religious frameworks. This kind of critique is distinct from concerns about economics or safety.

Context helps: In debates about surrogacy, some critics argue it disrupts the natural procreative process or clashes with religious teachings, suggesting it is morally wrong or unnatural. Others focus on different worries—like commodification (tocusing on turning a child or the reproductive process into a commercial transaction) or health risks to the surrogate or child. Those are valid criticisms but they address different angles (economic/ethical or safety) rather than the specific naturalness and religious objection described here.

So, this option is the best fit because it explicitly names the naturalness concern and religious opposition, which is the exact type of argument being asked about.