Passage Summary: A writer argues that a newspaper was wrong to criticize environmentalists; even if the total wolf count hasn't changed, that is only because people keep bringing in new wolves to replace the ones dying off.

Conclusion: The article's criticism of environmentalists regarding the wolf population on Vancouver Island was not justified.

Reasoning: The article claimed the population was stable, but it ignored the fact that environmentalists have been manually adding new wolves to the population for two decades.

Analysis: To identify the conclusion, we look for the author's primary claim, which is usually a rebuttal to someone else's position. The author starts by stating the article's criticism was 'unjustified' and then spends the rest of the passage explaining why the evidence used by the article (stable population) doesn't actually disprove the environmentalists' claim (deaths exceed births). The first sentence is the main point, while the bit about introducing new wolves is the evidence used to defend it.