The argument says essentially this:
-ticks get infected as larvae by feeding on infected mice.
-ticks can feed on all kinds of animals (different from mice) that do not carry the infection.
-if there were more of these other animals, fewer ticks would feed on the mice, so fewer ticks would get infected.
D isn't right, because it isn't relevant to the argument. D says, essentially, 'some ticks might get infected in some other way completely unrelated to what the argument discusses'. That might be true, but it doesn't matter; the number getting infected in the manner discussed in D isn't going to change based on the proposal made in the stem, so D is irrelevant. We need to evaluate whether the proposal in the stem is likely to reduce the number of ticks.
B is the best answer here. The above argument assumes that the total number of ticks does not grow substantially if you introduce new species for ticks to feed on. If the number of ticks stays the same, but many new animal species are introduced which cannot pass on the infection, you'd expect fewer ticks to feed on infected mice, and therefore you'd have fewer infected ticks. If, however, the number of ticks grows along with their food supply, you might have a lower percentage of infected ticks, but you might still have the same total number of infected ticks, because the total number of ticks is so much higher. That's exactly what B is getting at.