Q7 - Figorian Wildlife Commission: The development

[mwashington15]

I would like to know if my reasoning is correct. I selected answer B because it seems to paraphrase or restate the conclusion of the figorian wildlife commission. Is this reasoning correct?

[maryadkins]

This is a necessary assumption question. Remember that assumptions are ALWAYS unstated, so the right answer will never "restate" anything. The core of the Wildlife Commission's argument is:

development of wetlands endangers species
+
should construct replacement wetlands
-->
no threat to species, no reduction of wetlands

The assumption is that the replacement wetland habitats are not going to cause any harm or pose any threat to the species who have to move from the old habitats to the new ones. (Note that this is never actually stated.) (B) states this.

(A) is wrong because we aren't concerned with how wetland development compares to other kinds of development.
(C) nations that are primarily agricultural? Also, the argument is about NEEDING regulation; (C) states the opposite.
(D) is about what's happened in the past. The FWC's argument is about a proposed new regulation and its possible consequences.
(E) is incorrect. We're already told the species in the wetland are threatened. It doesn't matter how threatened. We're concerned with whether the proposed regulation will eliminate the existing threat altogether, regardless of how severe it is.