The government of India has introduced a new policy mandating all existing and upcoming hotels within a 5 km radius of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries to pay 30% of their annual turnover as tax. The official statement is part of broader efforts to regulate human activities near wildlife habitats. Environmental experts on the policy panel have argued that unregulated tourism often disrupts wildlife patterns, while proponents of eco-tourism suggest that responsible tourism can create incentives for conservation. Additionally, some states have been known to levy similar surcharges on tourism activities to fund environmental programs.

Which of the following statements can be inferred from the information given above?

Let us evaluate the given statements -

Option A: Though it is possible that the tax revenue may be used for conservation, the premise does not explicitly or indirectly confirm this. It only hints at the intention to regulate human activities.

Option B: The premise states that hotels within a 5 km radius are being taxed specifically due to their proximity to wildlife areas. This implies that the government recognizes a relationship between the presence of hotels (human activity) and the ecosystem around these protected areas. While it is not explicitly stated in the premise, the tax policy logically follows from the acknowledgement of such an impact. Thus, the statement here is a logical inference.

Option C: There is no indication in the premise that similar regulations will extend beyond the 5 km radius in the future. This is speculative.

Option D: The policy may increase costs for private hotels, but it does not explicitly state that this will discourage construction. Other factors like demand and profit margins might still make such projects viable.

Option E: The premise does not clearly mention “striking a balance” or promoting eco-tourism directly. This statement overinterprets the purpose of the tax.

Hence, Option B is the best choice.