White tigers are neither a species nor a subspecies, but appear as

Sorry, I'm not sure that I follow your reasoning here.

Here is the full text of the statement that you've bolded:


In this statement, the opponents are NOT arguing that Indian tigers are more likely to be threatened. They point out that Indian tigers are well represented in order to call attention to other subspecies (Chinese and Indochinese tigers) that are at greater risk of extinction.

This is why choice (A) is worth keeping; by presenting the opponents' arguments, the passage suggests that the Indian tiger is less threatened by extinction than other subspecies (namely, Chinese and Indochinese tigers).

Now let's consider choice (C):

The passage suggests that, compared with other subspecies, the Indian tiger is (C) likely to survive in the wild.

This one's shaky. The passage definitely suggests that Indian tigers are "well represented" in the wild, but "well represented" is a current measurement of the quantity (whether absolute or proportional) of Indian tigers. This is NOT the same a prediction of whether Indian tigers are going to continue to be well represented in the future, or that they're more likely to survive in comparison to other subspecies. It's entirely possible that Indian tigers are equally or less likely to survive than other subspecies, even if there are many more of them in the wild at the moment.

Now, in paragraph 1, the author does cite an opinion held by zoo managers, that the coloration of Indian tigers does not hinder their survival ability. But doesn't suggest anything about the likelihood of survival when compared with other subspecies — and that comparison of subspecies is what the question is asking us to check within the passage.

(A) is much more of a direct reflection of the passage than (C), and that's why it's our best choice.