Solution
From passage: "Experts believe climate change also plays a part in the escalation of human-carnivore conflicts... As finite resources become scarcer, carnivores and people are coming into more frequent contact, which means that more conflict could occur."
The key thought process -> Find what the passage clearly supports -> Then see which statement directly contradicts that support -> That's our answer.
The passage clearly says climate change does increase conflicts between humans and carnivores. It gives examples like lions and humans competing for water during droughts.
๐ Option 1 -> partial-truth -> If false, it means predatory attacks are not common and not increasing. The passage says they're "quite rare" at 17%, so this being false actually agrees with the passage.
๐ Option 2 -> context-shift -> If false, it means human efforts haven't worked well. The passage says 50% of attacks could be avoided, but doesn't clearly say current efforts are working great, so this being false doesn't really contradict anything.
๐ Option 3 -> scope-error -> If false, it means carnivores don't lose fear when exposed to human food. But the passage clearly states they "become less avoidant" and lose "instinctive fear response" when fed by humans. This being false would contradict the passage, but let we are looking for the bigger contradiction.
๐ข Option 4 is correct -> If false, it means climate change has had significant effects. The passage supports this view, so the statement being false would actually agree with the passage. But the original statement (that climate change has negligible effects) directly contradicts the passage's clear position that climate change escalates conflicts.
The answer is Option 4 because it directly contradicts the passage's clear statement that climate change plays a part in increasing human-carnivore conflicts.