Ecologist: Without the intervention of conservationists

Let's analyze this question.

Argument:

- If conservationists don't intervene, squirrel monkeys will become extinct.
- They will survive if large tracts of second-growth forest habitat are preserved for them.
- Squirrel monkeys flourish in second-growth forest because of the plentiful supply of insects and fruit.

Question: Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the ecologist’s statements? i.e. which one of the following can be concluded i.e. which one must be true?

(A) No habitat other than second-growth forest contains plentiful supplies of squirrel monkeys’ favorite insects and fruit.
Not given. All we know is that is that second growth forest contains insects and fruit. We don't if another habitat has insects and fruit too.

(B) At least some of the conservationists who intervene to help the squirrel monkeys survive will do so by preserving second-growth forest habitat for the monkeys.
Not given. We can't say how the conservationists WILL intervene. The argument only tells us one way in which they COULD to save the monkeys.

(C) Without plentiful supplies of their favorite insects and fruit, squirrel monkeys will become extinct.
Not given. We know that they flourish when there is plentiful supply of insects and fruit. We do not know whether or not they can survive on something else.

(D) If conservationists intervene to help squirrel monkeys survive, then the squirrel monkeys will not become extinct.
If conservationists do not intervene, squirrel monkeys will become extinct. If they do intervene, we don't know how they will do so. The argument only gives you one method of how they could save the monkey. We don't know whether they will use this method so we can't say that they will be successful in helping them survive.
Same logic as (B).

(E) Without the intervention of conservationists, large tracts of second-growth forest habitat will not be preserved for squirrel monkeys.
True according to the argument. The argument clearly says two things: Monkeys will survive if large tracts of second-growth forest habitat are preserved for them. If conservationists don't intervene, monkeys will not survive. They are premises and must be taken to be true. They imply that if conservationists don't intervene, large tracts of second-growth forest will not be preserved for the monkeys. (mind you, they could be preserved for some other animals, but not for the monkeys). If second growth forests could be preserved for these monkeys without conservationists' intervention, then we cannot say that 'If conservationists don't intervene, monkeys will not survive.'

Also note that all we are saying is that if conservationists DON'T intervene, forests will certainly NOT be preserved for the monkeys. We are not saying that if the conservationists DO intervene, then second growth forests WILL be preserved for them. Hence, it is consistent with the logic of (B).

Option (E) is correct.