PT122.S2.Q17 > Question

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 2 · lr

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6

PASSAGE 2

Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20

PASSAGE 4

Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that animal intelligence is not sufficient to prove animals are conscious. His reasoning is that, when humans exhibit complex behavior, it is not sufficient to prove that they are conscious.

The author’s support is about complex behavior, but his conclusion is about intelligence. What if those weren’t identical? Perhaps the humans who perform complex behaviors without being conscious also lack intelligence. If that were the case, being intelligent might be sufficient to prove that something is conscious, contradicting the author’s argument.

Therefore, he must assume that, if you exhibit complex, goal-oriented behavior, you have intelligence.

The negation is: complex behavior does not require intelligence. If so, the humans exhibiting unconscious complex behavior might not be intelligent. We would then have no reason to believe that intelligence is not always associated with consciousness. This would contradict the author’s argument, so he must assume (A) is true.

The author’s argument refers to what intelligence implies, not what consciousness implies. (B) says that some things with consciousness don’t have intelligence; the author says that some things with intelligence don’t have consciousness.

The author is assuming that all complex behavior requires intelligence, not that all conscious behavior requires intelligence.

On the contrary, the author concludes that intelligence by itself isn’t enough to prove that something is conscious.

The author’s argument is about the implications of complex, goal-oriented human behavior, not intelligent human behavior. So making assumptions about intelligent human behavior is not necessary.

PrepTest 122 - Section 2 - Question 17

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action