Environmentalist: The commissioner of the Fish and Game Authority would have the public believe that increases in the number of marine �sh caught demonstrate that this resource is no longer endangered. This is a specious argument, as unsound as it would be to assert that the ever-increasing rate at which rain forests are being cut down demonstrates a lack of danger to that resource. The real cause of the increased �sh-catch is a greater ef�ciency in using technologies that deplete resources.

The environmentalist's statements, if true, best support which of the following as a conclusion?
(A) The use of technology is the reason for the increasing encroachment of people on nature.
(B) It is possible to determine how many �sh are in the sea in some way other than by catching �sh.
(C) The proportion of marine �sh that are caught is as high as the proportion of rain forest trees that are cut
down each year.
(D) Modern technologies waste resources by catching inedible �sh.
(E) Marine �sh continue to be an endangered resource.

What I understand from the argument is:
The commissioner wants the public to believe that marine fish is not endangered anymore, whereas , it is the reverse case.
I think even A support's the conclusion well enough by saying that technology is the root cause for encroachment ?

Please help
Thanks