We find our answer to this question in Passage B's final paragraph. The author says, "These arguments are circular: conscious intention is ruled out a priori and then its absence is taken as evidence..."
Ruling something out a priori, or before observance, means you're making assumptions without any evidence.
Hope this helps!
avifMay 21, 2020
I don't see why D is the right answer. Although you point out that passage B states that animals may have consciousness, passage A brings evidence that animals don't communicate with intent.
Also, why is A incorrect. The end of passage B states how often humans will communicate with less intent than we give them credit for. Isn't that a critique on passage A's definition of language?
MeredithNovember 7, 2020
Can someone please answer Avi's question above? thanks.
