Human beings can exhibit complex, goal-oriented behavior without

Question

Human beings can exhibit complex, goal-oriented behavior without conscious awareness of what they are doing. Thus, merely establishing that nonhuman animals are intelligent will not establish that they have consciousness.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Complex, goal-oriented behavior requires intelligence.
(B) The possession of consciousness does not imply the possession of intelligence.
(C) All forms of conscious behavior involve the exercise of intelligence.
(D) The possession of intelligence entails the possession of consciousness.
(E) Some intelligent human behavior is neither complex nor goal oriented.

missionmba2025 · Answer

KarishmaB  - Can you please share your thoughts on this question. Thanks.

Shubhi67 · Answer

I think A is not the correct answer. Can anyone please give an explanation for this.

kryinkrumble · Answer

Hi! Can anyone share the official answer for this?

NithinRaja · Answer

Given Context  -- Human beings can exhibit complex, goal-oriented behavior without conscious awareness of what they are doing. Thus, merely establishing that nonhuman animals are intelligent will not establish that they have consciousness.

Meaning  -- Human beings can exhibit complex, goal-oriented behavior --> this is doesnot consciousness.
 Similarly Established fact-NonHuman Animals are intelligent --> will not establish that they have consciousness.
Equating both the sides it is clear that the author is assuming  complex, goal-oriented behavior  and  Intelligence as similar aspects.

Option A tells the same and hence becomes the answer.

KeonZhao7789 · Answer

But is it not that the argument about the relation between intelligence and consciousness? Option A only states that intelligence is associated with complex projects, it is consistent with the argument but doesn't necessarily directly state the necessary separation between intelligence and consciousness.

KeonZhao7789 · Answer

Basically, the structure of the argument, in my opinion, is below:

Premise ---Humans can exhibit complex, goal-oriented behavior without conscious awareness.
Conclusion---Therefore, showing that nonhuman animals are intelligent does not necessarily prove they have consciousness.

To bridge the premise to the conclusion, we need assumptions that indicate that "Intelligence and consciousness are distinct qualities, and the presence of one does not necessarily indicate the presence of the other.", perhaps with additional information stating this relationship between Intelligence and consciousness applies to both human beings and non-humans. None of the answers given contain this kind of information.

arkaja11 · Answer

Yes, I feel A is also not correct.

If there had been an option that like : Complex, goal-oriented behavior equates to intelligence.

Then we could say that mere presence of Intellingence doesn't gaurantee conciousness.

What are your thoughts  GMATNinja ?

egmat · Answer

You're thinking the assumption needs to be  stronger  than it actually does.

Here's why   Answer A is correct  :

An assumption question asks for what the argument  DEPENDS on  (minimum requirement), not what would make it  perfect  (ideal requirement).

The Argument Flow: 
 1.  Humans show complex, goal-oriented behavior WITHOUT consciousness
 2.Therefore , proving animals are intelligent won't prove they have consciousness

What's the gap?  We need to connect "complex behavior" to "intelligence"

Why (A) Works:  
If complex behavior  requires  intelligence, then:
→ Humans doing complex behavior without consciousness = Intelligence without consciousness
→ So proving animals have intelligence doesn't prove consciousness ✓

Your Concern:  You want "complex behavior  equates to  intelligence"

But think about it:
- "Requires" means: Complex behavior → Intelligence
- "Equates" means: Complex behavior ↔ Intelligence

The argument only needs the first relationship!   It's like saying:
- "Driving requires having a vehicle" (sufficient for the argument)
- vs "Driving = having a vehicle" (unnecessarily strong)

Remember:  In assumption questions, we find the  minimum  the argument needs, not the  maximum  that would help!

Human beings can exhibit complex, goal-oriented behavior without

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Human beings can exhibit complex, goal-oriented behavior without

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards