Assertion–Reason (Two Reasons):\nAssertion (A): Man–animal conflict is on the rise.\nReason (R1): Over the years, humans have become more hostile and aggressive.\nReason (R2): There is a clash of interests between humans and animals.

Introduction / Context:
The assertion notes rising human–wildlife conflict. We must evaluate whether a generalized claim about human hostility or a structural “clash of interests” better explains the trend.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• (A) Conflict incidents are increasing.
• (R1) Posits increased human hostility/aggression over time.
• (R2) Posits structural conflict due to overlapping needs (land, water, food, safety).

Concept / Approach:
Human–wildlife conflict typically emerges from habitat fragmentation, encroachment, resource competition, crop depredation, and settlement expansion—classic interest clashes—rather than shifts in individual-level hostility traits.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Case studies often point to corridor loss, shrinking prey bases, water sources, and cropland interfaces as conflict hotspots.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
(a) overstates (R1); (c) includes an unhelpful generalization; (d) rejects a valid structural account; (e) unnecessary hedging.

Common Pitfalls:
Explaining ecological conflicts via personality traits rather than landscape and resource dynamics.

Final Answer:
Option B: Only (R2) explains the assertion.