I was also thinking the D but later realized that its bit off since it ignores the chemical spill which is major factor in developing argument here. B is ok since it makes sense that more than five year old turtle came to lay eggs.

Posted from my mobile device

Author's Conclusion:- Environmentalist's prediction is unfounded.

Prediction of E's- turtle population will decline.

What we have to prove:- E's prediction is not unfounded. Or E is probably right in the prediction.

Looking at the argument, we see that there are few facts:-
-Oil spill occurred 5 years ago
-BB is the ONLY ground for MT
- Oil spill prevented nearly ALL eggs from hatching


Surprising fact:- MT still return to lay its eggs at the BB (She is not aware of the oil spill, it seems . The site is disastrous for the eggs)

But wait! Where are these turtles coming from? Nearly ALL eggs vanished 5 years ago and continue to prevent hatching eggs further.

The only reason could be that these females coming to lay their eggs here were born before oil spill. They will lay the eggs, which in turn will be vanished by oil, leading to decreased turtle population and supporting E's prediction.

Few Possible strengtheners-
1) The Turtles, along with eggs, coming to lay its eggs will severely be affected by the oil in the water.
2) The conditions at the base of sea has not improved since past 5 years and nearly ALL eggs will continue to vanish.


A. The chemical spill five years ago occurred at a time when there were neither Merrick sea turtles nor Merrick sea turtle eggs on Baker’s Beach. This is just a piece of information , but it doesn't tell us what will be the effect on number of turtles in future. Also, it is mentioned in the argument that there were eggs (only then they can vanish). It seems a false information.

B. Female Merrick sea turtles begin returning to Baker’s Beach to lay their eggs when they are ten years old. This is what one possible answer. These turtles will eventually die at certain old age and the eggs will anyway be vanished.

C. Under normal conditions, only a small proportion of hatchling female Merrick sea turtles survive in the ocean until adulthood and return to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach. We are talking about abnormal conditions in the argument.

D. Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill have caused a significant decline in the population of one of the several species of sea birds that prey on Merrick sea turtle eggs. It makes us believe that if predator has declined , MT should increase. But it doesn't tell us the other way.

E. After the chemical spill, an environmental group rejected a proposal to increase the Merrick sea turtle population by transferring eggs from Baker’s Beach to nearby beaches that had not been affected by the spill. This is out of scope. Rejection doesn't mean that population will decline while their is increase in number of females going to the beach to lay eggs.