Read the passage given below and answer the question that follows: Some argue…

Concept: An "inference" question asks you to pick the conclusion that the passage's own statements fully support — without adding an absolute, single-cause claim the passage never makes, and without contradicting what the passage explicitly says.

Application: The passage attributes the human-nature disconnect to several factors together (globalization, rising technology, population growth, and the diminished perceived worth of nature) — never to one factor alone. It then says "vital alternative, sustainable, and integrated development paradigms are being developed that aim to re-address the balance between the human system and the Earth system." This directly supports that coexistence between humans and nature remains possible, provided such corrective, balance-restoring changes are adopted.

Cross-check — why each other option fails against the passage's own wording:

• "All modern technologies are leading human away from nature" overgeneralizes a single cause (technology) into an absolute claim ("all"), when the passage names technology as only one of several contributing factors.

• "Globalization is the primary cause of all disconnect" elevates globalization to the sole/primary cause, but the passage lists it alongside other factors without ranking any one as primary.

• "Humans can exist even without the harmonious existence of nature" claims stronger independence from nature than the passage supports — the passage's own concern is that as this disconnect grows, the prospects for human well-being weaken, and it treats correcting that balance as necessary, not optional.

Result: the passage supports that both nature and humans can co-exist once the necessary rebalancing changes are embraced — matching the option that says exactly this.