Sumukh09 has nailed it!
This argument starts with a counterargument that "some claim", so we can expect the core to come after that and contradict it in some way. And so it does! After the "however", we have:
PREMISE: studies to test "innate ability" are inconclusive; birds might just use landmarks (like we do)
CONCLUSION: little evidence to support the belief that birds have an innate homing sense
I'd be curious to hear
how you narrowed your answer choices down to
(B) and
(C),
cck2_waikato - because I bet you picked up on the fact that
(A),
(D), and
(E) all say things the author never said!
(A) claims that birds definitely do not have an innate homing sense, while our author just concluded there was no evidence for it.
(D) Again, this answer claims that the homing is "probably not" innate (and confusingly seems to claim that birds DO use landmarks, when that was only raised as a possibility).
(E) Once again, claims that the believe that birds have an innate sense is false.
So, good job on realizing that all three of these trade on a misreading of the author's point. Now, both
(B) and
(C) are accurate reflections of something the author said, but which one supports the other? The keyword "since" is a helpful indicator here that "the studies" are the
support for the conclusion that "there is little evidence to support this belief".
(C) is the premise that supports the authors conclusion, while
(B) is the conclusion itself!
I hope this helps clear things up a bit, and great job
sumukh09!