. The argument is easy enough to understand, but the answer choices can be a little tricky.(A) All wavelengths of sunlight that can cause eye damage are filtered out by the ozone layer where it is intact.
The argument says that holes can lead to severe damage. That doesn't mean that areas in which the ozone layer is intact do not cause any damage. That is, there is a difference between eye damage and severe eye damage.(B) Few species of animals live on a part of the earth’s surface that is not threatened by holes in the ozone layer.
The argument does not talk about the extent of ozone holes. (C) Some species of animals have eyes that will not suffer any damage when exposed to unfiltered sunlight.
Be careful with this one--that not all species are affected by ozone holes does not mean some species are impervious to dangerous wavelengths. The 'some species' could simply be living in area which is not imperiled by ozone holes. (D) A single wavelength of sunlight can cause severe damage to the eyes of most species of animals.
The argument says nothing about a single wavelength. (E) Some wavelengths of sunlight that cause eye damage are more likely to reach the earth’s surface where there are holes in the ozone layer than where there are not.
The passage discusses the effects of damaging wavelengths becoming more widespread due to holes in the ozone layer. Therefore, where there are ozone holes there is a great likelihood of eye damage.
Magoosh Test Prep