The only answer that is correct here is A. Connor's reaction to protests was very violent while that of Pritchett was much more restrained and therefore more effective.
Bull Connor's reaction to protests in Birmingham, Alabama was violent. For example had his police officers allow their dogs to attack black protestors who were doing nothing that was at all violent. By contrast, Pritchett's handling of protests in Albany was restrained. He simply had protestors arrested and made sure that they were treated well.
The nonviolent approach that Pritchett took was much more effective. This is because it did not make the police and the white community look bad the way Connor's tactics did. This made it much harder for protestors to gain support in Albany than in Birmingham. If all police leaders had acted like Pritchett, the movement would have had a much harder time gaining white sympathy.