PT149 · S1 · Q24 Critics of a plan

We're not analyzing a claim about how many dolphins a certain habitat area can support. We're analyzing a claim about whether the square footage of this habitat area is being reduced. So learning that the habitat area could handle way more dolphins is really irrelevant. We're just judging whether this habitat goes from 1000 square meters to 800 square meters. We're not judging the relative density of dolphins that would live within that area.

We don't care at all what's the #1, #2 , #3 most serious threat to dolphins. This author isn't claiming that habitat reduction is a dire issue, or the most dire issue. She is only claiming that this action would not reduce habitat. Our correct answer will only be about whether or not grabbing this parcel of land under 5m of water is taking some habitat away from this local dolphin population. It doesn't matter whether doing so would be terrible for them, mildly bad for them, neutral for them, etc.

This is somewhat suggestive that dolphins might be living closer to the -30m depth than to the -5m depth where we want to build. But it's too weak compared to the correct answer. If the -5m water is just a tiny part of their habitat area, then the average could still be -25m. For example, let's say this is their habitat area - five acres that are 29m deep one acre that is 5m deep This would produce an average depth of 25m. If the new building claims that one acre that is 5m deep, then we are still reducing the dolphins' habitat. In short, this answer provides us no guidance as to whether the -5m land we want to use for this building site is or isn't part of the dolphins' habitat.

We don't care how deep it gets once it gets deeper than 30m. We already have a premise that locks in the idea that the dolphins aren't going beyond the -30m mark. So whether it dropped to -35m or -1000m wouldn't make any difference.