@akanshalsat, to answer your specific question:
Your mistake is assuming that what the Wildlife Comm.'s fact presented says ("The development of wetlands in industrialized nations for residential and commercial uses has endangered many species
.") equals the fact that these species' populations have actually been reduced. That's a leap! Those aren't the same thing. Just because the species are endangered doesn't mean that their population has gone down because of the development. (C) says that we need to actually prove that their population has gone down before we take measures.
MY GENERAL STRATEGY:
To start, when I was prephrasing (once I knew it was a strengthen question that asked us to strengthen the Development Comm.'s stance (which could also be seen as a weaken question that asks us to weaken the Wildlife Comm.'s stance), I made myself highlight each argument of the Wildlife Comm., line by line:
The development of wetlands in industrialized nations for residential and commercial uses has endangered many species.
So, something that suggests that development isn't actually causing a problem for the species would weaken.-->THIS pretty much matches the correct answer choice (C).
future wetland development must be offset by the construction of replacement wetland habitats
so, something that suggests that constructing replacements isn't going to be the same as the original and won't bring back the species population.
would cause no net reduction of wetlands and pose no threat to the species that inhabit them.
So maybe something that suggests that these re-constructed habitats would actually pose some kind of new threat would weaken.
You could also do the same type of prephrasing for each argument of the Development Comm., but look to strengthen instead of weaken:
Other nations have flagrantly developed wetlands at the expense of wildlife. We have conserved.
So, something that suggests that we should not be any more conscious about development than other nations would help.
Since Figorian wetland development might not affect wildlife and is necessary for growth, we should allow development.
So, something that says that either development does not usually affect wildlife, OR alternatively, that development is indeed necessary for growth, would help.
We have as much right to govern our own resources as countries that have already put their natural resources to commercial use
So, something that says we indeed do have as much right to govern our resources would help.
This is all what I'm keeping in mind as a prephrase, and stuff that I will be on the lookout for in each answer choice.
(C) Only when a reduction of populations of endangered species by commercial development has been found should regulation be implemented to prevent further damage.