I would go withe E, although it is posted that the right answer is A. Can't understand the logic for A
BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course
Redeem
Featured Course
Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand
Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.
- 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
- 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
- 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
- 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
- 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
- TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
- 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
- OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
- Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
- MBA Admissions Consulting now available
- 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
- 200,000+ students served
- 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★
5.0
(559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start
then $127/mo
Apes are our friends
-
khushboogandhi12
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 8
I was confused between A or E. I didn't know the meaning of creationist,so ended up marking E as the answer
-
mongviemong
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 3
I will go with E
because its said "there is no essential difference between human and animal intelligence." it not said "There's no difference between human and animal intelligence"
If there was disagreement about whether the difference was the ability to construct sentences, think symbolically, or create tools, at least there was broad agreement that there were intrinsic differences between human and animal intelligence. Debate centered on the question of what it was that made the human mind qualitatively different, and not whether it was qualitatively different at all. Language-using apes have eroded that earlier notion and also exposed uncertainty over the proper definition of human intellectual abilities. The animal/human dichotomy that has guided our thinking about language has given the investigation of language a curious circularity. Starting with the assumption that there were no continuities between animal and human language, we have looked for evidence to support this assumption, and then used this evidence to justify the assumption.
because its said "there is no essential difference between human and animal intelligence." it not said "There's no difference between human and animal intelligence"
If there was disagreement about whether the difference was the ability to construct sentences, think symbolically, or create tools, at least there was broad agreement that there were intrinsic differences between human and animal intelligence. Debate centered on the question of what it was that made the human mind qualitatively different, and not whether it was qualitatively different at all. Language-using apes have eroded that earlier notion and also exposed uncertainty over the proper definition of human intellectual abilities. The animal/human dichotomy that has guided our thinking about language has given the investigation of language a curious circularity. Starting with the assumption that there were no continuities between animal and human language, we have looked for evidence to support this assumption, and then used this evidence to justify the assumption.
Testimony to this tendency is that while the general population is inclined to believe that human abilities are the product of divine intervention or even, as some think
Right there, it mentions scientific theories may have been based on religious doctrines. Therefore E is wrong. A is correct because it's too radical an answer to be true.
Right there, it mentions scientific theories may have been based on religious doctrines. Therefore E is wrong. A is correct because it's too radical an answer to be true.
Here's my beef with this question:
Question E states "SOME scientific theories are consistent with fundamental religious doctrines." I recognize that when the article refers to creationist theory that refers to religion, but that's ONLY ONE EXAMPLE. For "SOME" to be correct, the article needs to mention more than one scientific theory that is consistent with a religious doctrine.
I would actually not have chosen E if it said "There is at least one scientific theory.... doctrine."
IMO, when people chose A because it's "too extreme" that's using the same logic to choose E... because SOME is more extreme than the ONE case listed here.
Did I miss something?
Question E states "SOME scientific theories are consistent with fundamental religious doctrines." I recognize that when the article refers to creationist theory that refers to religion, but that's ONLY ONE EXAMPLE. For "SOME" to be correct, the article needs to mention more than one scientific theory that is consistent with a religious doctrine.
I would actually not have chosen E if it said "There is at least one scientific theory.... doctrine."
IMO, when people chose A because it's "too extreme" that's using the same logic to choose E... because SOME is more extreme than the ONE case listed here.
Did I miss something?
I wasn't confused with the answer choices i marked A but for a different reason than mentioned.
If there was disagreement about whether the difference was the ability to construct sentences, think symbolically, or create tools, at least there was broad agreement that there were intrinsic differences between human and animal intelligence. Debate centered on the question of what it was that made the human mind qualitatively different, and not whether it was qualitatively different at all.
The author agrees there is a difference whereas the answer choice mentions there is no essential difference. Though I got the answer right it was for a wrong reason, how can I train myself to judge what is required for the answer.
If there was disagreement about whether the difference was the ability to construct sentences, think symbolically, or create tools, at least there was broad agreement that there were intrinsic differences between human and animal intelligence. Debate centered on the question of what it was that made the human mind qualitatively different, and not whether it was qualitatively different at all.
The author agrees there is a difference whereas the answer choice mentions there is no essential difference. Though I got the answer right it was for a wrong reason, how can I train myself to judge what is required for the answer.
-
deepak4mba
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 56
- Location: London
