Looking at the paragraph as a whole, the main focus is more on marine fish then anything else. It says that "The commissioner...would have the public believe that increases in the number of marine fish caught demonstrate that this resource is no longer endangered." Already, this is an indication that the marine fish may be endangered. The environmentalist uses rainforests as an example to get this point across. He says that the rainforest is being cut down at an increasing rate, but that doesn't mean that it is not in danger. In parallel to marine fish, the environmentalist is trying to say that just because marine fish are being caught in increasing numbers does not mean that it is not in danger. Lastly, an alternate cause for the high number of fish caught is given---there are a lot of marine fish caught, not because they are plenty in number (not endangered), but because technology has become more efficient in catching them.

(A) At a first quick glance, some people might keep it, but it is very weak since the focus is on marine fish and the question of being endangered.

(B) This is out of scope.

(C) There is nothing to support whether the two proportions are the same or not. This is not the main point of the paragraph. You'd have to ask yourself: Is this paragraph about how technology wastes resources by catching fish people can't eat? Definitely not.

(D) This is out of scope.

(E) Correct. I think this is exactly what the paragraph is saying.

A conclusion should support every sentence in the paragraph and (E) does that.

One more E
_________________

K 4 KUDOS

Fact1 (commissioner)
increases in the number of marine fish caught demonstrate that this resource is no longer endangered.
Fact2 (Environmentalist counters Fact1 with an analogy) This is a specious
argument, as unsound as it would be to assert that the ever-increasing rate at which rain forests are being cut down demonstrates a lack of danger to that resource.
Fact 3 (Environmentalist ) The real cause of the increased fish-catch is a greater efficiency in using technologies that deplete resources.

In Fact 3 the author provides a alternate theory to the increased fish-catch, hence he argues against the the commissioner's claim that the fish are not endangered.

Question - The environmentalist's statements, if true, best support which of the following as a conclusion? Fact1 is wrong Fact 2 & 3 is right, with this the conclusion given in choice E can safely be drawn.
_________________

Rock On

another sub-400 level question with answer staring in your face
_________________

What is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy.

I am one of those who was confused between B&E and incorrectly chose B. I now realize B is perhaps more of an assumption rather than a conclusion. Option E follows from the stimuli presented.