Say what conclusion the author probably intends readers to draw, and evaluate the argument using three of the methods you learnt. (that is, identifying the form of the argument, thinking of another argument of the same form with obviously true premises and an obviously false conclusion, thinking of circumstances in which the premises of the argument could be true and the conclusion false, questioning the premises, and discussing whether the language used in the argument is unacceptably vague or ambiguous).
If there were "buffer zones" for wildlife protection around national parks, then it is possible that large mammals such as bears could have enough habitat to survive. But that is not so -we allow strip mining and every other type of development right outside of national parks, with no restriction. The conclusion is obvious.