This is correct. While the conservationist provides statistics for the last decade that suggest a fairly low rate of collisions, the pilot points out that the conservationist fails to mention that collisions are not evenly spread out throughout the decade. They have been occurring at a much higher rate in the last two years, suggesting a higher current risk of collisions, and of passenger injuries, than what the conservationist implies.

The pilot does not address the conservationist’s motives. He focuses directly on the conservationist’s argument.

The pilot does not state a general principle about dangerous situations becoming more dangerous over time. The pilot addresses only one specific dangerous situation: the collisions between planes and birds from the wildlife refuge. Just because he suggests that as the number of collisions keeps increasing, the risk of passenger injuries will also increase, doesn't mean he thinks that in general, all dangerous situations inevitably become more dangerous.

Neither the pilot nor the conservationist mentions any moral principles.

This is incorrect. The pilot does not deny the accuracy of the conservationist’s figures: he does not claim that the number of collisions in the last 10 years is different than what the conservationist says. Rather, the pilot shows that the evidence provided by the conservationist is misleading on its own, and provides more specific evidence to paint a more accurate picture.