A coastal city recently installed artificial reef structures along its shoreline to combat beach erosion. Marine biologists observed that within two years, fish populations near the reefs increased by 40% compared to control sites without reefs. The city council concluded that the artificial reefs are effectively protecting the coastline from erosion.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the council's conclusion?The council concludes that the reefs are protecting the coastline from erosion. The evidence about fish populations does not directly prove that.
The strongest support would show that erosion actually decreased after the reefs were installed.
(A) The fish species that increased near the artificial reefs are known to feed on organisms that burrow into and destabilize sandy sediment.
This helps somewhat. It gives a possible mechanism by which more fish could help stabilize sediment. But it is still indirect.
(B) Several other coastal cities that installed similar reef structures reported comparable increases in local fish populations.
This does not directly help. More fish near reefs does not show less erosion.
(C) The artificial reefs were constructed using materials that marine biologists confirmed are non-toxic to local ecosystems.
This shows the reefs are environmentally safe, but not that they protect against erosion.
(D) Coastal erosion rates at the city's shoreline have decreased by 30% since the reef structures were installed.
This is correct. It directly supports the conclusion that the reefs are protecting the coastline from
erosion.
(E) Marine biologists have studied artificial reef structures for decades and consider them a promising tool for coastal management.
This is general support, but weaker than actual evidence that erosion decreased in this city.
Answer: (D)