The reading passage is about some evidence that can be considered as a proof of animal self-awareness. It reviews the results of an experiment on chimpanzees, which is called Mark test. The lecturer brings about some flaws in those results that cast doubt on the conclusion, which is supported by the author of the passage.
First of all, the lecturer mentions a consistency issue that makes the results of the Mark test unreliable. In a similar experiment on 11 cases, one of the chimps did not touch his face even once in a while. It seems that not all the test animals touch the marks on their faces while being exposed to their mirror image. Therefore, the passage claim that says more frequent facial manipulation in front of a mirror is because of self image recognition is refuted.
Second, according to the lecturer, in another experiment one of the animals touched and rubbed the red marks off his face even before recovering from anesthesia. This showed that frequent touching can be independent of the presence of a mirror. Thus, the claim by the passage that a mirror leads to a higher number of face touching is rejected.
Finally, the lecturer indicates that self-grooming and facial expressions are parts of normal social behaviors of chimpanzees. They do such things in front of their peers, the same way they do in front of a mirror. Thus, it cannot be concluded that self-grooming is a result of self-image recognition or a social norm among the chimps.
The reading passage is about
some
evidence that can
be considered
as a proof of animal self-awareness. It reviews the
results
of an experiment on chimpanzees, which
is called
Mark
test
. The
lecturer
brings about
some
flaws in those
results
that cast doubt on the conclusion, which
is supported
by the author of the passage.
First of all
, the
lecturer
mentions a consistency issue that
makes
the
results
of the
Mark
test
unreliable. In a similar experiment on 11 cases, one of the chimps did not touch his
face
even once in a while. It seems that not all the
test
animals touch the
marks
on their
faces
while
being exposed
to their mirror image.
Therefore
, the passage claim that says more frequent facial manipulation in front of a mirror is
because
of
self image
recognition
is refuted
.
Second, according to the
lecturer
, in another experiment one of the animals touched and rubbed the red
marks
off his
face
even
before
recovering from anesthesia. This
showed
that frequent touching can be independent of the presence of a mirror.
Thus
, the claim by the passage that a mirror leads to a higher number of
face
touching
is rejected
.
Finally
, the
lecturer
indicates that self-grooming and facial expressions are parts of normal social behaviors of chimpanzees. They do such things in front of their peers, the same way they do in front of a mirror.
Thus
, it cannot
be concluded
that self-grooming is a
result
of self-image recognition or a social norm among the chimps.