There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.
A. There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing. … Perfect comparison of the legal limits on the size of cod and haddock that can be caught with that legal limits on the size of catching monkfish.
B. There are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught, unlike cod or haddock, a circumstance that contributes to depleting them because they are being overfished. --- compares the size of the monkfish catch with the fishes of cod and haddock
C. There are legal limits on the size of cod and haddock that can be caught, but not for monkfish, which contributes to its depletion through overfishing. ---- which refers to monkfish; wrong
D. Unlike cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, which contributes to its depletion by being overfished. --- compares fishes to legal size limits; in addition, which refers to monkfish; wrong
E. Unlike catching cod and haddock, there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, contributing to their depletion because they are overfished…. ‘catching cod and haddock’ is being compared to legal size limits; wrong
For C, isnt this sentence "There are legal limits on the size of cod and haddock that can be caught, but not for monkfish" ambiguous as we it should be "There are legal limits on the size of cod and haddock that can be caught, but not for [the size of] monkfish"? In other words, it's not clear what the size of cod and haddock is being compared to?