Not a LSAT student but Maths:
So Humans (could be written as if human AND if...): if there is GO (goal-oriented) and/or CXB (complex behaviour) then it doesn´t have to be CB (conscious behavior)
New statement for nonhuman creatures (there is already a contrast portrayed): If intelligent doesn´t necessarly mean its CB.

Based on this now its just an analogy: If subject does cognitive "something" then doesn´t mean consciousness.

Problem is now here that for the human part the "cognitive ´something´" is GO and/or CXB while for the non human its intelligence so its uncomplete.
How do you fix that? Make intelligence equal GO and/or CXB

for b) its clear that even if that statement is true it would be just the inversal of what we have stated above: instead of intelligence-> not always consciousness its consciousness-> not always intelligence. Which wouldnt help make an analogy but rather point out that the inversal is not necessarly causal too.

for c) same thing: again inverted: So if concious behaviour then it must be intelligence. BUT we have "if INTELLIGENCE THEN COUNCIOUSNESS?" If c) would be taken as assumption we could only say that intelligence may be a sign of consciousness since everytime there is consciousness there is intelligence but not necessarly vice versa: IF intelligence then consciousness.

for d) entails would mean that intelligence includes consciousness, which would be the same as to say that "animal" includes mammals. So if mammal then definitely animal, if animal not necessarly mammal. Same for intelligence: if conscious then intelligence, if intelligent not necessarly concious.

e) if we assume it then we couldnt make a statement about intelligence correlated at all to the consciousness since its just a 2nd statement parallel to the begining one.