A nature conservancy expert found little support for his campaign to p

Dear SajjadAhmad,

I'm happy to respond.

I don't find the set-up particularly well constructed. When the prompt question asks about the "expert's opinion" (apostrophe missing), it's unclear whether this refers to the opinion that was the driving force behind his campaign to save the toad, or his evaluation of the results. It would a tighter, cleaner question if these were separated into two roles---e.g. an environmentalist ran the campaign, and, say, a sociologist of science evaluated the response. That way, the prompt question would be targeted to precisely one view. This is an example of the clarity one finds in official questions and higher caliber practice questions.

We will assume that we want to strengthen the opinion about the meager response to the campaign.

A. Ecological conservation is an increasingly important concern in the region.
This seems like a weakener: if this were true, it would seem to indicate that people would get behind the save-the-toad campaign, which they didn't do. This is incorrect.

B. A recent campaign to save bats achieved a measure of success only after a cartoon bat was adopted as the mascot of the local football team.
This is suggestive, anecdotal data. Yes, this is a strengthener, though often strengtheners on the GMAT are more logically tight--an anecdotal strengthener, by it's very nature, is logically weaker. We'll see if there's anything else.

C. Snakes and lizards also need protection in this region as a result of human activity.
This may be true, and the suggestion is that folks don't like those animals either, but of course this is our assumption. These animals need protections, but it's unclear whether there are any campaigns in place to protect them. From the information in the prompt, it's unclear how this information would relate to the argument. This is incorrect.

D. The campaign to protect toads has been in existence for over five years and yet the toad population continues to decline.
This is depressing, and consistent with the prompt, but it says very little about why the campaign has not been successful. This is incorrect.

E. The children in the local schools were found to have a greater aversion to toads than to snakes.
Vaguely suggestive. Politics is driven by adults, not by children. Do the adults share the children's proclivities about the ickiness of animals? We don't know. This is unclear, so this is incorrect.

We have eliminated four, so we are stuck with (B) as the best answer.

For this particular question, I would give the question writer a grade of C. It's not horrible, but not particularly close to the high standards of the GMAT.

Here's a high quality question:
The National Farm Administration

Does all this make sense?
Mike