Author A would disagree with this claim. In P3, we see that Gould’s research revealed that odor isn’t necessary for bees’ communication. We can eliminate (A). Also, passage B shows that bees may ignore instructions, but the reason for this was not the lack of food odor, so we can’t say that author B would accept this claim.

In passage A, Wenner and Esch didn’t establish that both sound and odor are vital for most honeybee communication. They both initially hypothesized that sound may be necessary, but this was dismissed at the time. Then, Wenner (but not Esch) proposed that smell may explain bee communication. This hypothesis didn’t come from both Wenner and Esch, and they never established that both smell and hearing are vital for most honeybee communication, so we can’t infer that author A would accept this claim. We can eliminate (B).

Also, passage B doesn’t mention Esch’s findings, nor does passage B indicate that both smell and hearing are vital, so we can’t infer that author B would accept this claim.

Passage A only discusses honeybees, so we can’t infer what most animal species do. Also, passage A doesn’t discuss symbolic communication. We can eliminate (C). Passage B says that some animals can communicate symbolically, but author B doesn’t claim that most animals can do this, so we can’t say that author B would accept this claim.

This is supported in P1 of passage A, which tells us that von Frisch discovered that bees can communicate through dances. This is also supported in P5 of passage B, which says that von Frisch was the first to crack the code of bee dances.

Passage A doesn’t compare inexperienced and experienced forager bees, so this is unsupported. We can eliminate (E). Passage B doesn’t make this distinction either, so we can’t say that author B would accept this claim.