Passage Summary: Just because an animal acts smart doesn't mean it's self-aware, because humans can do smart-looking, goal-directed things while totally on autopilot.

Conclusion: Proving that nonhuman animals are intelligent does not necessarily prove that they possess consciousness.

Reasoning: Human beings are capable of complex, goal-oriented behavior even when they are not consciously aware of their actions.

Analysis: The argument relies on an implicit connection between 'intelligence' and 'complex, goal-oriented behavior.' If intelligence were defined as something that *requires* consciousness, then proving intelligence would indeed prove consciousness, and the argument would fail. Therefore, the author must be assuming that what we call 'intelligence' in animals is the same thing as the 'complex, goal-oriented behavior' humans can do unconsciously. Look for an answer that bridges the gap between the behavior mentioned in the premise and the definition of intelligence used in the conclusion.