Critical Reasoning

In 1960's studies of rats, scientists found that crowding increases the number of
attacks among the animals significantly. But in recent experiments in which rhesus
monkeys were placed in crowded conditions, although there was an increase in
instances of "•coping"– behavior-such as submissive gestures and avoidance of
dominant individuals-attacks did not become any more frequent. Therefore it is not
likely that, for any species of monkey, crowding increases aggression as significantly as
was seen in rats.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
A. All the observed forms of coping behavior can be found among rhesus monkeys living in uncrowded conditions.
B. In the studies of rats, nondominant individuals were found to increasingly avoid dominant individuals when the animals were in crowded conditions.
C. Rhesus monkeys respond with aggression to a wider range of stimuli than any other monkeys do.
D. Some individual monkeys in the experiment were involved in significantly more attacks than the other monkeys were.
E. Some of the coping behavior displayed by rhesus monkeys is similar to behavior rhesus monkeys use to bring to an end an attack that has begun.

Let me share my thoughts on this one
A-->Uncrowded conditions makes it irrelevant so out
B--> no bearing on the conclusion of the arg which compares aggression in monkeys in general with aggresion in rats
so B is out
D-->sort of weaken the arg or not related to the conclusion of the arg
I am confused bet B and E here

If we look at E it talks about the coping behaviour of rhesus monkeys but the conclusion of the argument is a generic one...i mean applicable to all the monkeys....so I feel this should be out
So left out with B.....Does option B mean that rhesus monkeys are more aggresive than other monkey?If it does mean this then I think this should be the correct answer because it means that other monkeys are easy to cope with due to less aggresvie nature....
Do I sound correct in my thought process?