Critics of a plan to create new building sites from land that currently lies under only 5 meters of water claim that it will reduce the habitat area available to a local subpopulation of dolphins. It is true that the dolphins never enter water more than 30 meters deep, and the current area of habitation is bounded on one side by land and everywhere else by water that is considerably deeper than that. Nevertheless, the critics are mistaken, because ________.
Which one of the following most logically completes the argument?The critics assume that the 5-meter-deep water being converted into land is part of the dolphins’ habitat.
The argument needs a reason why that shallow area is not actually usable habitat for the dolphins.(A) the dolphins' current habitat area is large enough to support a dolphin population several times the size of the current one
Incorrect. Even if the remaining habitat is sufficient, the plan could still
reduce the habitat area, which is exactly what the critics claim.
(B) the dolphins do not inhabit water that is less than 10 meters deep
Correct. The proposed building sites are currently under only 5 meters of water. If the dolphins do not inhabit water shallower than 10 meters, that area is not part of their habitat in the first place. Converting it into land therefore would not reduce the available habitat area.
(C) the most serious threat to the dolphin subpopulation is not habitat reduction but disease and ocean pollution
Incorrect. Habitat reduction need not be the most serious threat for the critics' claim to be correct.
(D) the average depth of water in the dolphins' habitat area is 25 meters
Incorrect. An average depth of 25 meters does not tell us whether the 5-meter-deep area is part of their habitat.
(E) a short distance from the dolphins' habitat area, the ocean floor drops to a depth of 100 meters
Incorrect. The passage already tells us that dolphins do not enter water deeper than 30 meters, so 100-meter-deep water cannot replace any lost habitat.
Answer: (B)