A distemper virus has caused two-thirds of the seal population in the North Sea to die since May 1988. The explanatio...

Hi, Would I be incorrect in assuming that the correct answer choice here, answer choice A, is out of scope today (in 2021)? According to the stimulus, 2/3rd of the seal population have died since 1988—that was about 33 years ago. Answer choice A only brings up a loosely correlated phenomenon occurring only in the last ten years. Unless this question was from 1998 or earlier, “the last ten years” just sounds bizarre and completely out of scope… Is that fair to presume? Secondly, I chose answer choice C due to the prospect of pollution coming from humans, who have been fishing in the North Sea for “many years”. While “many years” feels more appropriate than “last ten years” for obvious timeline reasons, I also thought it was interesting how the answer explanation cited pollution as a potential cause for other species to experience “steep drops” in the population. Sure, correlating fishing with pollution might be a stretch, but aren’t population drop-offs among other North Sea species because of pollution a stretch as well? I would think the only LSAT variable capable of pollution is the human variable, so that doesn’t feel like much of a leap from “fish for human consumption have been taken from the waters of the North Sea.” Contrarily, unprecedented drop-offs of several species in the North Sea could result from other environmental changes than just pollution—such as an increase in shark presence or global warming—no? I didn’t love either answer, I’m just not sure how A is any less of a stretch than C is in this instance (not to mention the odd gap in timing correlation). If you have read this far, thank you! Kindly let me know if I am missing something on either of these fronts.