Adam Tyson wrote:Hey 15v, thanks for asking. Maritain's says that bees dance solely by conditional reflex, without any conscious understanding of what they are "saying". That's what we want to support with evidence from passage A.
Answer E tells us only that macaques communicate, but it adds nothing to support Maritain's claim that such communication is merely reflex and lacks intention. That statement, by itself, could just as easily support that there IS intention, right?
Answer D, though, at least makes a negative connection for us. Negative evidence (or a lack of evidence) really proves nothing, but this answer is still the best of the bunch because it at least addresses the concept of "no intention" that Maritain claims.
Since D at least addresses that issue, and E ignores it, D is the better answer of the two.
Keep at it! You're asking good questions!
Hey, thanks for the explanation. However, I disagree that "Answer E tells us only that macaques communicate, but it adds nothing to support Maritain's claim that such communication is merely reflex and lacks intention."
Answer E, as I understand it, refers to the evidence provided in
passage A, which states that macaques were not more likely to make cooing/alarm sounds. This is used in Passage A to demonstrate that macaques do not have intention to communicate, which would therefore also support Maritain's position.
The frogs, however, are much weaker evidence since there is no actual demonstration - it's simply saying "we don't know that they do have intention," whereas the macaques argument tells us "since macaques behave no differently regardless of who is aware/around, we can deduce that they don't have any particular intention when calling"
Can anyone provide some further clarification? thanks!