removed as question was wrong

in the argument above, the environmentalist is arguing with respect to the negative impact of the chemical spill. D talks about the impact due to decrease in population of a species which is unrelated to chemical spill.
hence D is incorrect.

if female turtles return to the beach ten yrs after their birth, they would not be aware of the dangers of the chemical spill and because of the chemical spill the chances of eggs getting hatched would be less. therefore the world’s Merrick population would decline.

hence IMO B.

Thanks!

Ans is B but the reasoning provided by loki may not be correct.

The correct reasoning is that the affects of the spill on the female turtles who return to lay their eggs will be visible 10 years after the spill due to the cycle described in B.

Netigen

Is not your assumption a bit out of scope. Talks about eggs affected not mother.

Thanks
Khurram

khurram wrote:Netigen

Is not your assumption a bit out of scope. Talks about eggs affected not mother.

Thanks
Khurram

Netigen's assumption is about those mother who were inside eggs 5 years ago. so If we have to see the effects, we'll have to wait for 10 years, when these females are old enough to lay eggs.

Well I feel B is the answer. I guess I'm right. If some expert could throw light on the reasoning it would be a big help.