Great question. The author discusses Maritain to provide an example of the type of distinction between human and animal communication (namely, that animal communication lacks conscious intention) that makes up an argument that scientists have that the author doesn't agree with.
A says that the author is describing an interpretation of animal communication (Maritain's description of the honeybees' waggle-dance just being a conditioned reflex that lacks conscious intention) that the author believes rests on a logical error (circular reasoning, which is mentioned line 53).
The author is basically saying that Maritain's explanation of the honeybees' waggle-dance is bad because we have no way of knowing whether or not bees have conscious intent. We know that they return to their hive and waggle-dance, communicating where the food is to the other bees. However, in doing so, the author is suggesting that Maritain is assuming that the waggle-dance is a conditioned reflex and that there is no conscious intent. This is a circular argument, which the author points out in lines 53 to 56 when she says, "But these arguments are circular; conscious intention is ruled out as a priori and then its absence take as evidence that animal communication is fundamentally different from human language."
Thus, answer A provides a great description of why the author discusses the philosopher Maritain in the passage.
Does this help clarify things? Let us know if you have any more questions!
