Having a really hard time with this question. I understand how B weakens if we take the conclusion to be a claim about size stemming from predator survival needs, but I don't understand how that conclusion is being made.

I understand the conclusion to be making the claim that a larger size is better for defence than armour.

Does B weaken because if we attack the assumption that size is essential to predator survival, then it isn't possible to support the claim in the conclusion that size is a better defence?

#help

How does Passage A not provide details? Does it not provide explicit details regarding how these principles are meant to function? What is a reasonable way to interpret "details" in this context?