The correct choice was B, I selected D. I found this statement really difficult to understand and even my BR took a while to do so if anyone can offer helpful tips on how they approached this question that would be greatly appreciated.

My reason for selecting the answer choice I did was because I made an assumption in the archaeologist's argument, I also confused myself with the grammar inside the stimulus.

This is how I am now understanding the question:

Treasure Hunter: Because of the rule, treasure hunters are entitled to what they retrieve since they are risking their lives. Since the rule applies, the ship is in peril. This condition must be met for the rule to apply.

Archeologist: They are not entitled to what they retrieve, the shipwrecks are stablized, the only danger they are exposed to is that of previous archaeologists and therefore are not in peril (implicitly stated). They are not in peril because for the rule to be met this condition must also be met, in this case it is not.

What they disagree about is whether or not the ship is in peril (B)

TH says this rule can be applied to a sunken ship. Implicitly saying that it is still in peril

A says nothing about the rule and only speaks about whether the treasure hunters are actually entitled to the artifacts or not. But since they are not entitled to the artifacts, the ship is not in peril.

(D) is incorrect because:

TH: agrees with the statement by saying even though they have sunk, treasure hunters are still entitled to what they discover because they risk their lives

A: Though they still risk their lives, they are only risking their lives because of other treasure hunters, not because the ship is in peril. But they make no mention about whether maritime law can be applied