A common approach to algae cultivation involves covering a pond with a greenhouse, instead of leaving the pond uncovered. Because there is a practical limit on the size of a greenhouse, this method limits the extent of the algae-growing system. Nevertheless, covering the pond results in a much higher algae yield because.
(A) the greenhouse prevents contamination from invasive bacteria, which can destroy entire species of algae.
Yes! Remember the argument is why greenhouse vs uncovered? Despite greenhouse having certain practical constraints yet it is much better solution than uncovered, cause if you leave it uncovered it is guaranteed that there will be invasive bacteria hence killing algae.
(B) the greenhouse changes the quality of sunlight that reaches the algae, causing more frequent genetic mutations.
Again how can we say genetic mutations is good or bad? What if it is bad? We need to complete the sentence with something that is good reason for having greenhouse.
(C) leaving the pond uncovered is an acceptable solution depending on the species of algae being cultivated.
This is reverse answer, we need an answer stating why having greenhouse is better than uncovered.
(D) covered ponds better mimic the artificial environment of a photobioreactor, which is the most effective tool to preserve certain threatened types of algae.
No the context is for all types of algae, why are we giving reasoning only for certain threatened types of algae?
(E) the limited available space makes it more likely that only one species will be cultivated in a given pond.
Again why are we trying to reduce scope of argument by going from generic alage popln system to one species? This can also be considered out of context.