Pollution levels in natural habitats have risen so much tha

Why not option B?

B. Game meat is lower in unhealthy hormones and antibiotics than meat from commercially raised animals.
This does support that there should be regulations to prevent natural habitats.

Can someone please explain? Sajjad1994

commercially raised animals?

This is out of scope. We have no knowledge of commercially raised animals. Think logically. If a statement says that 2+2 is not equal to 5; can we infer that 2+2 is equal to 4? No, we cannot. In the same way, if we have some information about the natural habitats that doesn't mean we can infer something opposite for commercial animals.

Thanks Sajjad1994. While I get your point, I feel the analogy presented doesn't fit in this question completely.

The given question is analogous to a case having 2 possibilities, say event A and event B, and one must happen:
event A: People consume game meat
event B: People consume commercially raised meat

If event A doesn't happen, we must infer that it is event B that will take place.
If people don't consume game meat, they would consume commercially raised meat.

As Option B says that Game meat (natural) is healthier than commercially raised animals, wouldn't people prefer consuming game meat? And, does this not incentivize govt to support natural habitats?

While in your presented analogy, if 2+2 is not equal to 5, we must consider what all numbers can the answer take? - the options to choose are unlimited, and so we definitely cannot infer 2+2 equals 4.

Let me share another example: Did it rain today? If the answer is No, then it must have rained today. There are only 2 possibilities.

In the given question - a person can consume a natural meat or a commercially raised meat. There are only 2 possibilites.

Please correct me what I am missing here. Thanks for the response, really appreciate it.