Replacement wetlands will be built to offset wetland development. So, Wetland development will cause no net reduction of wetlands and will not threaten the species that inhabit them.
A gap that does exist is whether the newly constructed wetlands could accomplish all that the Wildlife Commission's conclusion suggests they will. Would the animals that inhabit those wetlands be able to move to the new ones, and would they survive there?
Let’s negate B: The species indigenous to natural wetland habitats will NOT SURVIVE in specially constructed replacement wetlands. The conclusion falls apart.
Maybe the act of being moved or some subtle difference between natural and man-made wetlands would render the slimy wetland species unable to survive the switch.
(A) is out of scope-the argument does not compare the impact of different types of developments.
(C) is out of scope. There's no discussion of agriculture in the argument.
(D) is out of scope as the success of previous regulations is irrelevant to predictions for the impact of the regulation discussed in the argument. If past ones had failed-i.e. if we negate (D)-it's irrelevant because those failed regulations may have been poorly designed.
(E) is out of scope. The argument does not mention how threatened the affected animals are.
Hence, B is correct.
_________________
Thanks in the forum can be expressed by hitting KUDOS!!!