The history of the evolution of life, incomplete as it yet is, already reveals to us how the intellect has been formed, by an uninterrupted progress, along a line which ascends through the vertebrate series up to man. It shows us in the faculty of understanding an appendage of the faculty of acting, a more and more precise, more and more complex and supple adaptation of the consciousness of living beings to the conditions of existence that are made for them. Hence should result this consequence that our intellect, in the narrow sense of the word, is intended to secure the perfect fitting of our body to its environment, to represent the relations of external things among themselves-in short, to think matter.
But from this it must also follow that our thought in its purely logical form, is incapable of presenting the true nature of life, the full meaning of the evolutionary movement. Created by life, in definite circumstances, to act on definite things, how can it embrace life, of which it is only an emanation or an aspect? Deposited by the evolutionary movement in the course of its way, how an it be applied to the evolutionary movement itself? As well contend, that the part is equal to the whoIe, that the effect can re absorb its cause, or the pebble left in the beach displays the form of the wave that brought it there. In fact, we do indeed feel that not one of the categories of our thought-unity, multiplicity, mechanical causality, intelligent finality, etc. - applies exactly to the- things of life: who can say where individuality begins and ends, whether the living being is one or many, whether it is the cells which associate themselves into the organism or the organism which dissociates itself into cells?
Which of the following can be inferred from the information in the passage?
(A) There is no clarity at the moment on how intellect has been formed
(B) Our thoughts are also a part of the evolutionary process
(C) Certain categories of thoughts can be applied to specific aspects of life
(D) Humans have most likely stopped evolving
(E) Thoughts cannot explain evolution
Source: Aristotle RC Grail
OA: B
Can someone explain why not E, doesn't the first sentence of the second para convey the same?[/spoiler]
But from this it must also follow that our thought in its purely logical form, is incapable of presenting the true nature of life, the full meaning of the evolutionary movement. Created by life, in definite circumstances, to act on definite things, how can it embrace life, of which it is only an emanation or an aspect? Deposited by the evolutionary movement in the course of its way, how an it be applied to the evolutionary movement itself? As well contend, that the part is equal to the whoIe, that the effect can re absorb its cause, or the pebble left in the beach displays the form of the wave that brought it there. In fact, we do indeed feel that not one of the categories of our thought-unity, multiplicity, mechanical causality, intelligent finality, etc. - applies exactly to the- things of life: who can say where individuality begins and ends, whether the living being is one or many, whether it is the cells which associate themselves into the organism or the organism which dissociates itself into cells?
Which of the following can be inferred from the information in the passage?
(A) There is no clarity at the moment on how intellect has been formed
(B) Our thoughts are also a part of the evolutionary process
(C) Certain categories of thoughts can be applied to specific aspects of life
(D) Humans have most likely stopped evolving
(E) Thoughts cannot explain evolution
Source: Aristotle RC Grail
OA: B
Can someone explain why not E, doesn't the first sentence of the second para convey the same?[/spoiler]
