Question Description
[1]Studies of brain evolution are compelling because of their implications for understanding human evolution. [2]Consequently, researchers are motivated by a desire to find the causes of intelligence. [3]What is intelligence? [4]It is inevitably described with respect to human attributes; we consider ourselves intelligent, and we therefore compare other species to ourselves. [5]This view is legitimized by the fact that humans do have very sophisticated brains, exhibit extraordinarily complex behavior, and cope well in novel situations, generalizing from one problem to another.[6]Unfortunately, criteria applicable to humans are not necessarily appropriate for evaluating traits of other organisms. [7]There is no basis for the assumption that all intelligence is human-like intelligence, nor even for the preconception that all primate intelligence is human-like. [8]To say that intellectual prowess is comparative across species and to use humans as the basis for comparison is a continuation of pre-Darwinian ideas of a scala naturae dealing with intelligence. [9]If ranking species in a single phylogenetic line according to criteria based on the extant member is questionable, then certainly since ecological conditions and selection pressures change over time, ranking contemporary species separated by millions of years of evolution based on the traits exhibited by one is unjustifiable. [10]To assume a continuum of intelligence across today's species is incompatible with an evolutionary perspective, and this preconception must not be allowed to guide studies of brain evolution. [11]The information-processing systems of different animals have been designed to respond to different stimuli, diverse ""cognitive substrates,"" and therefore expectations of an interspecific regularity between these IPS and various other body measures are ill-conceived.[12]What # lacking # a good definition # intelligence that will allow us # say something # how an animal copes # its own ecology and not how closely # approximates human behavior. [13]There are undeniable trends in the history of life -- towards larger brains in mammals and larger neocortices in primates -- but to generalize correlations of these trends into a concept of intelligence should not be attempted until an accurate definition is developed. [14]Until that time, the most that comparative brain size studies can do is demonstrate correlations and thereby pose questions for scientists who focus on the evolution of species with one of these correlated characteristics.Q. The author’s suggestion about brain studies towards the end of the passage is a)flawed and ruinousb)shortsighted and difficult to sustainc)popular and easily accomplishedd)useful until another alternative is foundCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about [1]Studies of brain evolution are compelling because of their implications for understanding human evolution. [2]Consequently, researchers are motivated by a desire to find the causes of intelligence. [3]What is intelligence? [4]It is inevitably described with respect to human attributes; we consider ourselves intelligent, and we therefore compare other species to ourselves. [5]This view is legitimized by the fact that humans do have very sophisticated brains, exhibit extraordinarily complex behavior, and cope well in novel situations, generalizing from one problem to another.[6]Unfortunately, criteria applicable to humans are not necessarily appropriate for evaluating traits of other organisms. [7]There is no basis for the assumption that all intelligence is human-like intelligence, nor even for the preconception that all primate intelligence is human-like. [8]To say that intellectual prowess is comparative across species and to use humans as the basis for comparison is a continuation of pre-Darwinian ideas of a scala naturae dealing with intelligence. [9]If ranking species in a single phylogenetic line according to criteria based on the extant member is questionable, then certainly since ecological conditions and selection pressures change over time, ranking contemporary species separated by millions of years of evolution based on the traits exhibited by one is unjustifiable. [10]To assume a continuum of intelligence across today's species is incompatible with an evolutionary perspective, and this preconception must not be allowed to guide studies of brain evolution. [11]The information-processing systems of different animals have been designed to respond to different stimuli, diverse ""cognitive substrates,"" and therefore expectations of an interspecific regularity between these IPS and various other body measures are ill-conceived.[12]What # lacking # a good definition # intelligence that will allow us # say something # how an animal copes # its own ecology and not how closely # approximates human behavior. [13]There are undeniable trends in the history of life -- towards larger brains in mammals and larger neocortices in primates -- but to generalize correlations of these trends into a concept of intelligence should not be attempted until an accurate definition is developed. [14]Until that time, the most that comparative brain size studies can do is demonstrate correlations and thereby pose questions for scientists who focus on the evolution of species with one of these correlated characteristics.Q. The author’s suggestion about brain studies towards the end of the passage is a)flawed and ruinousb)shortsighted and difficult to sustainc)popular and easily accomplishedd)useful until another alternative is foundCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for [1]Studies of brain evolution are compelling because of their implications for understanding human evolution. [2]Consequently, researchers are motivated by a desire to find the causes of intelligence. [3]What is intelligence? [4]It is inevitably described with respect to human attributes; we consider ourselves intelligent, and we therefore compare other species to ourselves. [5]This view is legitimized by the fact that humans do have very sophisticated brains, exhibit extraordinarily complex behavior, and cope well in novel situations, generalizing from one problem to another.[6]Unfortunately, criteria applicable to humans are not necessarily appropriate for evaluating traits of other organisms. [7]There is no basis for the assumption that all intelligence is human-like intelligence, nor even for the preconception that all primate intelligence is human-like. [8]To say that intellectual prowess is comparative across species and to use humans as the basis for comparison is a continuation of pre-Darwinian ideas of a scala naturae dealing with intelligence. [9]If ranking species in a single phylogenetic line according to criteria based on the extant member is questionable, then certainly since ecological conditions and selection pressures change over time, ranking contemporary species separated by millions of years of evolution based on the traits exhibited by one is unjustifiable. [10]To assume a continuum of intelligence across today's species is incompatible with an evolutionary perspective, and this preconception must not be allowed to guide studies of brain evolution. [11]The information-processing systems of different animals have been designed to respond to different stimuli, diverse ""cognitive substrates,"" and therefore expectations of an interspecific regularity between these IPS and various other body measures are ill-conceived.[12]What # lacking # a good definition # intelligence that will allow us # say something # how an animal copes # its own ecology and not how closely # approximates human behavior. [13]There are undeniable trends in the history of life -- towards larger brains in mammals and larger neocortices in primates -- but to generalize correlations of these trends into a concept of intelligence should not be attempted until an accurate definition is developed. [14]Until that time, the most that comparative brain size studies can do is demonstrate correlations and thereby pose questions for scientists who focus on the evolution of species with one of these correlated characteristics.Q. The author’s suggestion about brain studies towards the end of the passage is a)flawed and ruinousb)shortsighted and difficult to sustainc)popular and easily accomplishedd)useful until another alternative is foundCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for [1]Studies of brain evolution are compelling because of their implications for understanding human evolution. [2]Consequently, researchers are motivated by a desire to find the causes of intelligence. [3]What is intelligence? [4]It is inevitably described with respect to human attributes; we consider ourselves intelligent, and we therefore compare other species to ourselves. [5]This view is legitimized by the fact that humans do have very sophisticated brains, exhibit extraordinarily complex behavior, and cope well in novel situations, generalizing from one problem to another.[6]Unfortunately, criteria applicable to humans are not necessarily appropriate for evaluating traits of other organisms. [7]There is no basis for the assumption that all intelligence is human-like intelligence, nor even for the preconception that all primate intelligence is human-like. [8]To say that intellectual prowess is comparative across species and to use humans as the basis for comparison is a continuation of pre-Darwinian ideas of a scala naturae dealing with intelligence. [9]If ranking species in a single phylogenetic line according to criteria based on the extant member is questionable, then certainly since ecological conditions and selection pressures change over time, ranking contemporary species separated by millions of years of evolution based on the traits exhibited by one is unjustifiable. [10]To assume a continuum of intelligence across today's species is incompatible with an evolutionary perspective, and this preconception must not be allowed to guide studies of brain evolution. [11]The information-processing systems of different animals have been designed to respond to different stimuli, diverse ""cognitive substrates,"" and therefore expectations of an interspecific regularity between these IPS and various other body measures are ill-conceived.[12]What # lacking # a good definition # intelligence that will allow us # say something # how an animal copes # its own ecology and not how closely # approximates human behavior. [13]There are undeniable trends in the history of life -- towards larger brains in mammals and larger neocortices in primates -- but to generalize correlations of these trends into a concept of intelligence should not be attempted until an accurate definition is developed. [14]Until that time, the most that comparative brain size studies can do is demonstrate correlations and thereby pose questions for scientists who focus on the evolution of species with one of these correlated characteristics.Q. The author’s suggestion about brain studies towards the end of the passage is a)flawed and ruinousb)shortsighted and difficult to sustainc)popular and easily accomplishedd)useful until another alternative is foundCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of [1]Studies of brain evolution are compelling because of their implications for understanding human evolution. [2]Consequently, researchers are motivated by a desire to find the causes of intelligence. [3]What is intelligence? [4]It is inevitably described with respect to human attributes; we consider ourselves intelligent, and we therefore compare other species to ourselves. [5]This view is legitimized by the fact that humans do have very sophisticated brains, exhibit extraordinarily complex behavior, and cope well in novel situations, generalizing from one problem to another.[6]Unfortunately, criteria applicable to humans are not necessarily appropriate for evaluating traits of other organisms. [7]There is no basis for the assumption that all intelligence is human-like intelligence, nor even for the preconception that all primate intelligence is human-like. [8]To say that intellectual prowess is comparative across species and to use humans as the basis for comparison is a continuation of pre-Darwinian ideas of a scala naturae dealing with intelligence. [9]If ranking species in a single phylogenetic line according to criteria based on the extant member is questionable, then certainly since ecological conditions and selection pressures change over time, ranking contemporary species separated by millions of years of evolution based on the traits exhibited by one is unjustifiable. [10]To assume a continuum of intelligence across today's species is incompatible with an evolutionary perspective, and this preconception must not be allowed to guide studies of brain evolution. [11]The information-processing systems of different animals have been designed to respond to different stimuli, diverse ""cognitive substrates,"" and therefore expectations of an interspecific regularity between these IPS and various other body measures are ill-conceived.[12]What # lacking # a good definition # intelligence that will allow us # say something # how an animal copes # its own ecology and not how closely # approximates human behavior. [13]There are undeniable trends in the history of life -- towards larger brains in mammals and larger neocortices in primates -- but to generalize correlations of these trends into a concept of intelligence should not be attempted until an accurate definition is developed. [14]Until that time, the most that comparative brain size studies can do is demonstrate correlations and thereby pose questions for scientists who focus on the evolution of species with one of these correlated characteristics.Q. The author’s suggestion about brain studies towards the end of the passage is a)flawed and ruinousb)shortsighted and difficult to sustainc)popular and easily accomplishedd)useful until another alternative is foundCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of [1]Studies of brain evolution are compelling because of their implications for understanding human evolution. [2]Consequently, researchers are motivated by a desire to find the causes of intelligence. [3]What is intelligence? [4]It is inevitably described with respect to human attributes; we consider ourselves intelligent, and we therefore compare other species to ourselves. [5]This view is legitimized by the fact that humans do have very sophisticated brains, exhibit extraordinarily complex behavior, and cope well in novel situations, generalizing from one problem to another.[6]Unfortunately, criteria applicable to humans are not necessarily appropriate for evaluating traits of other organisms. [7]There is no basis for the assumption that all intelligence is human-like intelligence, nor even for the preconception that all primate intelligence is human-like. [8]To say that intellectual prowess is comparative across species and to use humans as the basis for comparison is a continuation of pre-Darwinian ideas of a scala naturae dealing with intelligence. [9]If ranking species in a single phylogenetic line according to criteria based on the extant member is questionable, then certainly since ecological conditions and selection pressures change over time, ranking contemporary species separated by millions of years of evolution based on the traits exhibited by one is unjustifiable. [10]To assume a continuum of intelligence across today's species is incompatible with an evolutionary perspective, and this preconception must not be allowed to guide studies of brain evolution. [11]The information-processing systems of different animals have been designed to respond to different stimuli, diverse ""cognitive substrates,"" and therefore expectations of an interspecific regularity between these IPS and various other body measures are ill-conceived.[12]What # lacking # a good definition # intelligence that will allow us # say something # how an animal copes # its own ecology and not how closely # approximates human behavior. [13]There are undeniable trends in the history of life -- towards larger brains in mammals and larger neocortices in primates -- but to generalize correlations of these trends into a concept of intelligence should not be attempted until an accurate definition is developed. [14]Until that time, the most that comparative brain size studies can do is demonstrate correlations and thereby pose questions for scientists who focus on the evolution of species with one of these correlated characteristics.Q. The author’s suggestion about brain studies towards the end of the passage is a)flawed and ruinousb)shortsighted and difficult to sustainc)popular and easily accomplishedd)useful until another alternative is foundCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for [1]Studies of brain evolution are compelling because of their implications for understanding human evolution. [2]Consequently, researchers are motivated by a desire to find the causes of intelligence. [3]What is intelligence? [4]It is inevitably described with respect to human attributes; we consider ourselves intelligent, and we therefore compare other species to ourselves. [5]This view is legitimized by the fact that humans do have very sophisticated brains, exhibit extraordinarily complex behavior, and cope well in novel situations, generalizing from one problem to another.[6]Unfortunately, criteria applicable to humans are not necessarily appropriate for evaluating traits of other organisms. [7]There is no basis for the assumption that all intelligence is human-like intelligence, nor even for the preconception that all primate intelligence is human-like. [8]To say that intellectual prowess is comparative across species and to use humans as the basis for comparison is a continuation of pre-Darwinian ideas of a scala naturae dealing with intelligence. [9]If ranking species in a single phylogenetic line according to criteria based on the extant member is questionable, then certainly since ecological conditions and selection pressures change over time, ranking contemporary species separated by millions of years of evolution based on the traits exhibited by one is unjustifiable. [10]To assume a continuum of intelligence across today's species is incompatible with an evolutionary perspective, and this preconception must not be allowed to guide studies of brain evolution. [11]The information-processing systems of different animals have been designed to respond to different stimuli, diverse ""cognitive substrates,"" and therefore expectations of an interspecific regularity between these IPS and various other body measures are ill-conceived.[12]What # lacking # a good definition # intelligence that will allow us # say something # how an animal copes # its own ecology and not how closely # approximates human behavior. [13]There are undeniable trends in the history of life -- towards larger brains in mammals and larger neocortices in primates -- but to generalize correlations of these trends into a concept of intelligence should not be attempted until an accurate definition is developed. [14]Until that time, the most that comparative brain size studies can do is demonstrate correlations and thereby pose questions for scientists who focus on the evolution of species with one of these correlated characteristics.Q. The author’s suggestion about brain studies towards the end of the passage is a)flawed and ruinousb)shortsighted and difficult to sustainc)popular and easily accomplishedd)useful until another alternative is foundCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of [1]Studies of brain evolution are compelling because of their implications for understanding human evolution. [2]Consequently, researchers are motivated by a desire to find the causes of intelligence. [3]What is intelligence? [4]It is inevitably described with respect to human attributes; we consider ourselves intelligent, and we therefore compare other species to ourselves. [5]This view is legitimized by the fact that humans do have very sophisticated brains, exhibit extraordinarily complex behavior, and cope well in novel situations, generalizing from one problem to another.[6]Unfortunately, criteria applicable to humans are not necessarily appropriate for evaluating traits of other organisms. [7]There is no basis for the assumption that all intelligence is human-like intelligence, nor even for the preconception that all primate intelligence is human-like. [8]To say that intellectual prowess is comparative across species and to use humans as the basis for comparison is a continuation of pre-Darwinian ideas of a scala naturae dealing with intelligence. [9]If ranking species in a single phylogenetic line according to criteria based on the extant member is questionable, then certainly since ecological conditions and selection pressures change over time, ranking contemporary species separated by millions of years of evolution based on the traits exhibited by one is unjustifiable. [10]To assume a continuum of intelligence across today's species is incompatible with an evolutionary perspective, and this preconception must not be allowed to guide studies of brain evolution. [11]The information-processing systems of different animals have been designed to respond to different stimuli, diverse ""cognitive substrates,"" and therefore expectations of an interspecific regularity between these IPS and various other body measures are ill-conceived.[12]What # lacking # a good definition # intelligence that will allow us # say something # how an animal copes # its own ecology and not how closely # approximates human behavior. [13]There are undeniable trends in the history of life -- towards larger brains in mammals and larger neocortices in primates -- but to generalize correlations of these trends into a concept of intelligence should not be attempted until an accurate definition is developed. [14]Until that time, the most that comparative brain size studies can do is demonstrate correlations and thereby pose questions for scientists who focus on the evolution of species with one of these correlated characteristics.Q. The author’s suggestion about brain studies towards the end of the passage is a)flawed and ruinousb)shortsighted and difficult to sustainc)popular and easily accomplishedd)useful until another alternative is foundCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice [1]Studies of brain evolution are compelling because of their implications for understanding human evolution. [2]Consequently, researchers are motivated by a desire to find the causes of intelligence. [3]What is intelligence? [4]It is inevitably described with respect to human attributes; we consider ourselves intelligent, and we therefore compare other species to ourselves. [5]This view is legitimized by the fact that humans do have very sophisticated brains, exhibit extraordinarily complex behavior, and cope well in novel situations, generalizing from one problem to another.[6]Unfortunately, criteria applicable to humans are not necessarily appropriate for evaluating traits of other organisms. [7]There is no basis for the assumption that all intelligence is human-like intelligence, nor even for the preconception that all primate intelligence is human-like. [8]To say that intellectual prowess is comparative across species and to use humans as the basis for comparison is a continuation of pre-Darwinian ideas of a scala naturae dealing with intelligence. [9]If ranking species in a single phylogenetic line according to criteria based on the extant member is questionable, then certainly since ecological conditions and selection pressures change over time, ranking contemporary species separated by millions of years of evolution based on the traits exhibited by one is unjustifiable. [10]To assume a continuum of intelligence across today's species is incompatible with an evolutionary perspective, and this preconception must not be allowed to guide studies of brain evolution. [11]The information-processing systems of different animals have been designed to respond to different stimuli, diverse ""cognitive substrates,"" and therefore expectations of an interspecific regularity between these IPS and various other body measures are ill-conceived.[12]What # lacking # a good definition # intelligence that will allow us # say something # how an animal copes # its own ecology and not how closely # approximates human behavior. [13]There are undeniable trends in the history of life -- towards larger brains in mammals and larger neocortices in primates -- but to generalize correlations of these trends into a concept of intelligence should not be attempted until an accurate definition is developed. [14]Until that time, the most that comparative brain size studies can do is demonstrate correlations and thereby pose questions for scientists who focus on the evolution of species with one of these correlated characteristics.Q. The author’s suggestion about brain studies towards the end of the passage is a)flawed and ruinousb)shortsighted and difficult to sustainc)popular and easily accomplishedd)useful until another alternative is foundCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.