Passage Summary: A conservationist says a bird refuge is safe because there haven't been many accidents over ten years. A pilot argues it's actually getting dangerous because most of those accidents happened lately and the bird count is rising.

Conclusion: The risk of passenger injury from bird collisions is actually increasing, contrary to the conservationist's claim.

Reasoning: The pilot points out that the vast majority of collisions happened very recently and that the bird population is growing rapidly.

Analysis: The pilot's strategy is to introduce new evidence that puts the conservationist's data into a different context. While the conservationist relies on a ten-year average to downplay the risk, the pilot highlights a recent trend that suggests the average is no longer representative of current reality. You should look for an answer choice that describes this as providing additional information to undermine the relevance of a historical record. It's a classic case of 'the past doesn't predict the future' when the variables are changing.