Not supported. We know that second growth forests have a lot of the favorite insects and fruit. This doesn’t imply that other habitats don’t have these things.

If the monkeys survive, we know that second-growth forests have been preserved. And we know that this implies the conservationists intervened. But we don’t know exactly how the conservationists intervened. What they did might be unrelated to the forests. The forests were preserved, sure; but we don’t know that the conservationists helped to preserve the forests.

We know that without the intervention of conservationists, the monkeys will go extinct. But we have no idea whether lack of favorite fruits and insects will lead to extinction. The monkeys can “flourish” because of those fruits and insects; but this doesn’t imply that without those things, the monkeys will die.

This confuses sufficient and necessary conditions. We know that if conservationists DON’T intervene, the monkeys will go extinct. This does not imply that if conservationists DO intervene, that the monkeys will survive.

(E) is supported by the connection between the first two sentences:

If there is NO intervention of conservationists → squirrel monkeys extinct → tracts of second-growth forest NOT preserved