Lol I hate to say it, but this argument doesn’t give af about the animals. The official’s conclusion is just about the impact that harvesting trees has on atmospheric CO₂. If the conclusion were “harvesting trees is a good thing to do,” then (A) would be relevant.

This addresses the argument’s net effect reasoning by introducing an additional factor that undermines its overall calculus. The official notes that trees decompose when they’re not harvested, but (B) notes that trees also decompose when they are harvested.

Rapidly puts some icing on the cake, as well, since it suggests harvested trees could introduce more CO₂ into the atmosphere than they would if left to decompose naturally.

Here’s the argument’s logic, which (C) fails to weaken:

Old tree has lots of stored CO₂. We remove it from the forest, presumably without releasing any CO₂. Now we have room for a new tree to grow in that spot and absorb additional CO₂.

That’s how it works, according to the official. On this narrative, it doesn’t matter how much young trees store compared to old trees – we’re still storing more total CO₂ than we would if we just left the old tree in place.

(D) doesn’t really add anything new, it just provides more detail about the phenomenon the official already established – stuff left in the forest tends to decompose, releasing CO₂.

This arguably strengthens the argument. These new trees are gonna keep sucking up CO₂ for a long time!

See (C) for an additional explanation about why the exact amount of CO₂ young trees can absorb doesn’t impact the official’s argument much.