To me it seems both B and E are spported to certain extent. I would like to see arguemnt why B is decisevly wrong.

i dont see B coming into the picture at all !!

where does the arguement talk about animals not being threatened ?

it only talks about the animals being threatened.

B and D are wrong for sure and I got E correct but would like more explanation. Thanks

1. Ozone filters out some but not all wavelengths of light
2. Holes in the ozone can be dangerous
3. The holes can lead to severe eye damage in animals

A. Incorrect. The passage never says this. Only some wavelengths are filtered and its possible that eye damage is caused by those that are let through.

B. Incorrect. The passage here talks about how the holes could lead to severe damage for animals. It doesnt say that all animals are affected. It could be that only one spot in the earth has a hole in the ozone where all those species would be hurt, but the animals in the rest of the world would be fine provided they dont wander into that area with the hole.

C. Incorrect. Again it never says this. We know that most can have sever damage. That means the rest could all suffer damage, its just not severe.

D. Incorrect. The passage never distinguishes between the amount of light that passes through and what those effects are.

E. Correct. The passage tells us that holes in the ozone lead to severe eye damage. E tells us that wavelengths that cause eye damage are more likely to reach the surface when there are holes. That must be true. If it was not true than it would mean the severe eye damage caused by light is not a byproduct of the holes in the ozone.

Thanks for your explanation fitzgerald23!