Solution
✅ Correct Option: 4
Answer: Option 3 – "Carnivores lose their instinctive fear of humans when consistently exposed to human food sources."
How to approach the question
The question asks which statement, if false, would contradict the passage. So we are looking for the statement the passage itself relies on. If that statement were false, the passage's argument would fall apart.
Option-by-option check
- Option 3 (correct): The passage says carnivores that rely on human food "become less avoidant of humans" and lose "that instinctive fear response," which leads to altercations. This is one of the passage's main concerns. If it were false, this driver of conflict would not exist, so the passage would be inconsistent.
- Option 1 (wrong): The passage says predatory attacks are "quite rare" (17% of attacks in North America since 1955). The statement is already false according to the passage, so its being false is consistent with the passage.
- Option 2 (wrong): The passage says 50% of attacks could have been avoided if humans reacted differently, and that risky behaviour raises the likelihood of attack. It never says that efforts to avoid risky behaviour have already been proven effective. If this statement were false, the passage's concerns would still stand.
- Option 4 (wrong): The passage says experts believe climate change plays a part in escalating conflicts. "Negligible effects" goes against this, so the statement is already false according to the passage. Its being false is consistent with the passage.
Quick rule: Options 1 and 4 are claims the passage rejects, and Option 2 is a claim the passage never makes. Only Option 3 is stated directly and supports the passage, so only its falsity would create an inconsistency.