This is unsupported because we don’t know anything about the maximum population sizes that species maintain and how that relates to survival.

This is strongly supported because different species, varying based on how much food they need, would have different risks of mass extinction. Large species who need more food are at a greater risk than small species needing less.

This is unsupported because small-animal species may go extinct when conditions deteriorate due to reasons unrelated to food supply. The author only states that large-animal species are more from climate shocks to food.

This is unsupported because while food is identified as one of the factors influencing prospects for survival, we don’t know that it is the primary factor. We also don’t know that it is the primary factor for any individual - our author limits analysis to whole species.

This is unsupported because it is possible that climatic conditions are so bad as to affect small and large-species animals. We only know that large-species animals typically fare worse in climate changes.