got it right but still not sure why

Hi Abigail, good job breaking down this question. I like your breakdown, the one thing I would change is that the conclusion is moreso "the species that are extinct now would have become extinct even without technology", rather than simply "species in general become extinct regardless of tech". The argument is saying the specific species that are extinct now would become extinct anyways without technology. The flaw here is that even if some extinction would continue without human technology, the argument ignores the possibility that technology contributes to or exacerbates extinction. Furthermore, they've given us no reason to think the same specific species would have gone extinct. E is getting at this point, basically saying that the argument doesn't give us any reason to show that the specific species that are extinct would have been extinct now without technology. For example, maybe there's some species of rainforest animals that have gone extinct because of habitat loss and logging. Say bug X went extinct. Sure, some bugs probably would have gone extinct even without logging just because of evolution and stuff, but how do we know that bug X in particular would be extinct? This is the flaw the option E points out. I hope this helps, feel free to follow up with any further questions.