The inclusion of analyzing human behavior is out of place. The passage isn’t focused on how classical game theory can be used to analyze human decision-making in settling disputes. In addition, (A) doesn’t include reference to using evolutionary game theory to explain A. aperta’s behavior.

This is too narrow. How A. aperta might behave in grassland and riparian habitats is relevant only to the last paragraph, where the author describes Riechert’s predictions based on evolutionary game theory. But (B) doesn’t capture the broader point that evolutionary game theory might be able to explain A. aperta’s behavior.

This best captures the main point, which is that Riechert argues evolutionary game theory may explain A. aperta’s behavior. The author explains this theory in P2 and describes Riechert’s predictions based on the theory in P3.

This doesn’t capture the idea that evolutionary game theory can be used to explain A. aperta’s behavior. In addition, the author never suggests that traditional theories of animal behavior can’t explain the fighting of “most” (over half) species.

Not supported, because we don’t know that evolutionary game theory is currently used by “scientists” — we only know that Riechert uses it. In addition, “site selection” is not supported. Riechert applies evolutionary game theory to explain spider fighting behavior in territorial disputes. This isn’t the same as explaining how spiders select sites. Because (E) isn’t supported, it can’t be the main point.