Between 1960 and 1980 the seal fish population of the Siargao Islands declined precipitously. There were no signs of disease or malnutrition, so there was probably an increase in the number of seal fish being eaten by predators. Whales will eat seal fish when otters, their normal prey, are unavailable, and the Siargao Islands otter population declined dramatically in the 1960s. Therefore, whales were most likely the immediate cause of the seal fish population decline.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
Solution:A. The population of sea urchins, the main food of seal fishes, has increased since the seal fish population declined.:
This takes about what happened after the seal population declined. And it's pretty obvious, the population of prey increases when the population of predators decreases.B. Otters do not eat seal fishes, nor do they compete with seal fishes for food.:
This could be justified as a mild strengthener. But since we already know that even the Otters' population was decreasing. This fails to provide let's just say sufficient strength to the argument.C. Most of the surviving seal fishes live in a bay that is inaccessible to whales.:
This directly links to our conclusion. If there is the cause, there is the effect but if there is no cause, there is no effect.D. The population of whales in the Siargao Islands has declined since the 1960s.:
This weakens the conclusion slightly.E. An increase in commercial fishing near the Siargao Islands in the 1960s caused a slight decline in the population of the fish that seals use for food.:
This also is a slight weakener as it does provide an alternate explanation but not a strong one.