Q17 - Politician: Critics of the wetlands

[pistachio2014]

Hi, I'm having trouble fully understanding this question. Could you please explain why (B) is the correct answer? Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Tough question. Thanks for bringing it to the forum!

Let's start with identifying the argument core.

Evidence
Critics of the wetlands protection bill are delaying passage of this important legislation merely on the grounds that they disagree with its new, more restrictive definition of the term "wetlands."

Conclusion
Therefore, in quibbling over semantics, critics of this bill show that they care little about what really happens to our wetlands.

The question is, "Are the critics really quibbling over semantics?" I would say "no." They may really have an issue with the impact of letting the more restrictive definition become law. Answer choice (B) describes this concern perfectly.

(A) the motives are identified as disagreeing with the more restrictive definition. There's no reason to question this premise.
(C) is not true. There is no mention of financial motive in the conclusion.
(D) would have the author on the wrong side of the issue. The author is advocating for a more restrictive definition.
(E) is not true. The author of the bill is not defended in this argument.

Does that help clear this one up?

[pistachio2014]

Thank you. I understand it now!