GWD的Q32，海龟产蛋，没有搜索到讨论贴，来请教

Q32:

A major chemical spill occurred five years ago at Baker’s Beach, the world’s sole nesting ground for Merrick sea turtles, and prevented nearly all the eggs laid that year from hatching.  Yet the number of adult female Merricks returning to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach has actually increased somewhat since five years ago.  Clearly, environmentalists’ prediction that the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill has proven unfounded.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the argument offered in refutation of the environmentalists’ prediction?

1. The chemical spill five years ago occurred at a time when there were neither Merrick sea turtles nor Merrick sea turtle eggs on Baker’s Beach.

2. Female Merrick sea turtles begin returning to Baker’s Beach to lay their eggs when they are ten years old.

3. Under normal conditions, only a small proportion of hatchling female Merrick sea turtles survive in the ocean until adulthood and return to lay their eggs at Baker’s Beach.

4. Environmental pressures unrelated to the chemical spill have caused a significant decline in the population of one of the several species of sea birds that prey on Merrick sea turtle eggs.

5. After the chemical spill, an environmental group rejected a proposal to increase the Merrick sea turtle population by transferring eggs from Baker’s Beach to nearby beaches that had not been affected by the spill.

我不明白的是：题目问：UNDERMINE THE ARGUMENT IN REFUTATION OF ENVIRONMENTLISTS’ PREDICTION。说明问的是哪项支持ENVIRONMENTLIST的观点。而EN的观点是：environmentalists’ prediction that the world’s Merrick population would decline as a result of the spill 。而B说是的产蛋跟年龄有关，这不是削弱EN的观点吗？请指正我。谢谢

EN说的是因为化学泄露海龟数量减少，原文说海龟数量增多因为5年前的繁殖数量增加，B起到他因削弱，如果海龟是10年后才开始繁殖，说明现在更多海龟繁殖是因为10年前海龟数量孵蛋量的增加，而如果海龟数量确实受到了化学影响也要在10年后才显现出来，而反对者5年后就得出了结论，所以被削弱从而增强了EN的结论

那就是说：为了支持EN的观点，即海龟产蛋还是受了SPILL的影响的，B说海龟10年后才来产蛋，说明即使有影响目前看不出来，要等再一个10年后，看那里来产蛋的海龟数量。可以这样理解吗？

非常感谢楼上同学的回复