A fast way to solve "-centric" vocabulary questions is to isolate the root word: eco- (environment/ecosystem), anthropo- (human), ethno- (ethnic/cultural group), andro- (male).
Rickaby's statement puts "personhood" and "understanding," qualities he assigns only to humans, at the centre of who deserves rights or duties, explicitly placing animals outside that circle, on the same footing as "stocks and stones."
That is a human-centred (anthropo-) standard for moral worth, not an ecosystem-centred, culture-centred, or male-centred one, so the other three roots don't match what the statement is actually doing.
The correct answer is therefore Anthropocentric view of animals.
When a question groups several claims about "how X contributed to Y" and offers "All the above," check whether the claims are drawn from the same paragraph/idea or from different, unrelated parts of the passage.
Here, all three statements, valuing spiritual over earthly things, dividing beings by reason, and treating animals as peripheral to salvation, come from the SAME discussion of Christianity's "other-worldly" tendency in the passage's second paragraph. They read as three ways of describing one connected pattern, not three unrelated causes competing with each other.
Since the passage ties all three together as part of a single Christian influence, the complete answer is All the above.
Break down what "instrumental" means literally: treating something as an instrument, i.e. valuing it for what it can DO or provide, not for what it inherently IS.
That is a practical, use-based way of assigning value, which is the core idea behind "pragmatism" (judging by practical usefulness). It is essentially the opposite of "idealism" (value rooted in ideas/minds) and "egalitarianism" (equal worth for all), both of which reject a purely use-based ranking of beings.
Since "instrumentalism" and "pragmatism" share the same use-based logic, the correct answer is Pragmatism.
On "NOT true" questions, look for the option that overreaches, generalising something the passage only supports in a specific, limited way.
Options B, C, and D each point to one precise detail in the passage: Aquinas folding Aristotle's idea into Christian theology (B), the passage's direct statement that these influences "justified... the subjection of animals to experimentation" (C), and Bacon citing "divine bequest" to justify scientific inquiry (D).
Option A, by contrast, claims Western philosophy AND science are BOTH broadly "under the influence of" religion, but the passage's Aristotle example shows the opposite direction in that case: a philosophical idea that predated Christianity and was "largely unsupported by scripture" was later absorbed BY religion, not the other way around.
Because option A generalises beyond, and even runs against, what the passage's own example shows, it is the one statement that is NOT true.
When an inference question offers "Both A and B" alongside "Neither," check each of A and B independently against the text before deciding whether they combine or cancel out.
Check A: Descartes calls the belief that animals think a "prejudice," a word that itself signals an unreasoned, irrational belief, supporting A.
Check B: Descartes compares a swallow's movement to "the workings of a clock," a direct mechanical/automaton comparison, supporting B.
Since the passage backs both statements with separate pieces of textual evidence rather than supporting only one, "Neither" is ruled out and both inferences hold together, making the correct answer Both (A) and (B).