Thanks for the question! So let’s take a look at what’s going on here. Henry’s saying that some scientists explain honeybee dancing by saying that honeybees dance to communicate locations of food sources. But Henry doesn’t think so, that’s too complicated, so there has to be some other explanation.
Winifred then rebuts by saying that that’s not necessarily true, most animals have several ways of doing the same thing. Some bees can navigate in two ways, so Winifred says that for honeybees, scent trails are just one way they show food sources, and that there are others.
Now we’re asked for the role of the bees of some species navigating in Winifred’s response to Henry. (D) says that it points out that Henry’s conclusion directly contradicts one of his premises. But that’s not what’s happening; Winifred is providing extra context and more information, but she’s not pointing out a contradiction between Henry’s conclusion and one of his premises. A direct contradiction would be something like if a premise said A, and the conclusion was ~A. For example, a premise is “it’s raining,” and the author concludes “it’s not raining.” Something like that isn’t happening here. She’s just providing evidence, which is what (B) says.
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.
