Some species are called "indicator species" because the loss of a population of such a species serves as an early warning of problems arising from pollution. █████████████████ ████████ ███ ███████ ██ █████████ ████ ████████████ ████ ████ ██ █████████ ████████ ███ █████████████████ █████ ██ █████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ███ ████ ██ █ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████ ████████ ██ ██████████ █████ ██ ██████ █████████████ ████████████ ████ ███ ████ ██ █████ █ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ █████████ ██ ██ ██████████ ██ ████ ████████ █████ ██ ███████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ ████
A decreased population of an an indicator species shouldn’t always be attributed to pollution because there is an alternative cause (the ecosystem naturally evolving).
The conclusion identifies a potential misinterpretation: “environmentalists would be misguided if they attributed the loss of a population to pollution in all cases.”
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ██████████ ███████████
Environmentalists sometimes overreact ██ ███ ████ ██ █ ████████ ███████████
There’s no discussion of what magnitude would be appropriate or inappropriate in reaction; the author is discussing potentially faulty causal reasoning.
The loss of █ ████████ ██████████ ██████ ███ ██████ ██ ███████████ ██ █ ████ ██ █████████████ ████████████
This rephrases the conclusion: a decrease in a specific population should not be attributed to pollution in every case.
Environmentalists' use of █████████ ███████ ██ ████████ ███ ███████ ██ █████████ ██ █████ ████████████
The conclusion isn’t that this practice is inherently problematic; the author admits its usefulness. The conclusion is that environmentalists shouldn’t always attribute decreased population to pollution. In any case, notice that the conclusion says environmentalists would be misguided IF they think loss of indicator species is always due to pollution. But that doesn't mean some environmentalists actually in fact believe this. So (C) goes wrong when it says that what environmentalists are doing is in fact problematic.
The loss of █ ████████ ██████████ ██ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ ███████ ██ ██ █████████ ███ ██ ████ █████ ██████ ███ ██ █████████
The author does not make any claim about whether population loss should be resisted.
The loss of █ ████████ ██████████ ██ █ ██████ ██ █████████ ██ ██████ ████ ██ ████████ ██████ ████
The author makes a distinction between population loss due to environmental degradation and population loss due to natural evolution. (E) fuses these ideas incorrectly.