Letter to the editor: Your article was unjustified in criticizing

Environmentalists' claim: More wolves are killed by hunters than are born each year.
Article criticising E's claim: Recent studies indicate that the total number of wolves on Vancouver Island has remained roughly constant for 20 years.
Letter to Editor against the article: You failed to account for the fact that, fearing the extinction of this wolf population, environmentalists have been introducing new wolves into the Vancouver Island wolf population for 20 years.

The argument in the letter (that you failed to consider intro of new wolves) is against the article (that wolf population is stable) that criticises the claim of Es (More wolves are killed by hunters than are born each year).

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the conclusion of the argument in the letter to the editor?

(E) is correct.
(E) The stability in the size of the Vancouver Island wolf population does not warrant the article’s criticism of the environmentalists’ claim.

This is what the argument is saying - that the article states that population is stable but that does not mean that the environmentalists’ claim is false because more wolves are introduced each year.

Rest of the options are incorrect.

(A) Environmentalists have been successfully maintaining the wolf population on Vancouver Island for 20 years.
This is not the conclusion of the argument. This is not the reason the author wrote the argument. The author wanted to say that the article's criticism is not correct.

(B) As many wolves on Vancouver Island are killed by hunters as are born each year.
It seems more wolves are killed than are born each year.

(C) The population of wolves on Vancouver Island should be maintained by either reducing the number killed by hunters each year or introducing new wolves into the population.
The author does not comment on "what should be done".

(D) The recent studies indicating that the total number of wolves on Vancouver Island has remained roughly constant for 20 years were flawed.
The argument doesn't say that. The numbers have remained constant.

Let's break down the argument.

Letter to the editor:(editor of some kind of publication) Your article was unjustified in criticizing environmentalists [conclusion]for claiming that more wolves on Vancouver Island are killed by hunters than are born each year. You stated that this claim was disproven by recent studies that indicate that the total number of wolves on Vancouver Island has remained roughly constant for 20 years. (Premise.) But you failed to account for the fact that, fearing the extinction of this wolf population, environmentalists have been introducing new wolves into the Vancouver Island wolf population for 20 years. (Premise for support of writer's view and additional information that the article did not provide while criticizing the environmentalists)

The first highlight is the conclusion of the author.
The second highlight is what the author does not believe is a proper basis for criticizing the environmentalists and the author introduces new information to back his claim. A combination of these two should be the final conclusion ( or main point) of the argument.

Let's look at the options...
(A) Environmentalists have been successfully maintaining the wolf population on Vancouver Island for 20 years. TRAP - true fact but not the conclusion of the argument
(B) As many wolves on Vancouver Island are killed by hunters as are born each year. Opposite of what the author is trying to say. This is the article's viewpoint which is flawed.
(C) The population of wolves on Vancouver Island should be maintained by either reducing the number killed by hunters each year or introducing new wolves into the population. Out of scope. Discard.
(D) The recent studies indicating that the total number of wolves on Vancouver Island has remained roughly constant for 20 years were flawed. TRAP - this is true but encapsulates only half of the conclusion of the author.
(E) The stability in the size of the Vancouver Island wolf population does not warrant the article’s criticism of the environmentalists’ claim. Perfect - this combines both the points highlighted above and is the main conclusion of the argument.

Hope this helps.
_________________

Answer is E.

A is only a fact.
B is contrary to what the author is saying.
C- No backup of such claims
D is onlynhalf true (as it says that study numbers are flawed whereas at least the numbers are OK, reasoning is not)
E is CORRECT!! It sums up the discussion and the pain point of the author.

Bumping for further discussion. Not the hardest question, but an easy one to get wrong if you aren't paying attention
_________________

In order not to repeat what many of the other members already correctly pointed out, I´ll try to focus on the concept:

Keep in mind that we are focusing on the broader context, the information about the wolves population in Vancouver Island is meant to help us evaluate the argument.
Therefore, make sure not to fall for any answer choices that relate to statements about the wolves population itself rather than to its role in the dispute between the editor and the environmentalists.
_________________

Letter to the editor: Your article was unjustified in criticizing environmentalists for claiming that more wolves on Vancouver Island are killed by hunters than are born each year. You stated that this claim was disproven by recent studies that indicate that the total number of wolves on Vancouver Island has remained roughly constant for 20 years. But you failed to account for the fact that, fearing the extinction of this wolf population, environmentalists have been introducing new wolves into the Vancouver Island wolf population for 20 years.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the conclusion of the argument in the letter to the editor?

(A) Environmentalists have been successfully maintaining the wolf population on Vancouver Island for 20 years. - WRONG. Not the core of the passage.
(B) As many wolves on Vancouver Island are killed by hunters as are born each year. - WRONG. Not at all. Already mentioned in the passage.
(C) The population of wolves on Vancouver Island should be maintained by either reducing the number killed by hunters each year or introducing new wolves into the population. - WRONG. Can't be conclusion since bringing the new wolves to maintain the population was given as an example to counter the criticism of Environmentalists.
(D) The recent studies indicating that the total number of wolves on Vancouver Island has remained roughly constant for 20 years were flawed. - WRONG. May not be flawed but the cause might be different for that. Also, this is not the core of the passage.
(E) The stability in the size of the Vancouver Island wolf population does not warrant the article’s criticism of the environmentalists’ claim. - CORRECT. Goes right back to the first sentence that said it is unjustified on Editor's part to criticise Environmentalists.

Answer E.
_________________

The conclusion of the argument is best expressed by option (E):

(E) The stability in the size of the Vancouver Island wolf population does not warrant the article’s criticism of the environmentalists’ claim.

This conclusion argues that the stability in the size of the Vancouver Island wolf population, which has remained roughly constant for 20 years, is a valid reason to refute or criticize the article's claims that environmentalists were wrong about the number of wolves killed by hunters compared to those born each year. In other words, the argument suggests that the stability of the wolf population justifies the environmentalists' claim, and it questions the criticism presented in the article.