I just wanted to make sure I understand both the "time theory" and the reasoning why each answer choice is either correct or incorrect.
From my understanding, the "time theory" states that tropical regions haven't been affected by ice ages, so there was more time for diverse species to develop. So, tropical region --> no ice age --> more time.
A - The "time theory" holds that ice ages leads to less time for diverse species to develop. So, if there were no additional ice ages, the number of species at high latitudes could increase. I think "could" was especially important because ice ages might not be the only factor that slows diverse species development. Thus, "could" keeps open the possibility that it might not.
B - This is the opposite of what the theory argues.
C - This seems similar to A except that it focuses on climatic conditions instead of # of species. Thus, it's wrong since we can't infer this.
D - This is too strong.
E - This was initially my answer. Is this wrong because like C, it focuses on climatic conditions? The "time theory" only states that no ice ages provide more time for diverse species to develop without mention of changing climatic conditions. If there were no ice ages in tropical regions, temperate regions and arctic regions, they could have had similar # of species even though they have differing climatic conditions since they would have similar amounts of time for diverse species to develop.
Thank you for your help!