I instead mentioned that they were the ''key'' areas, which is indisputable.
I just disputed it on the grounds of insufficient evidence.
Relating to the article:
[...] the ability to combine and recombine different types of information and knowledge in order to gain new understanding [...]
I can't check the veracity this, unfortunately, as the original research article was not cited. Therefore I cannot accept this as scientifically accurate.
[...] to apply the same "rule" or solution to one problem to a different and new situation [...]
This is related to our expectations of causality, which I find to be commonly overlooked. Humans raised in an enriched environment full of reliable tools and predictable events can pull a switch or turn a handle and expect it to do something useful. Through experience, we can make these associations and take them for granted.
I like to consider the analogy of being a stowaway on an alien spacecraft. Thre are doors, but it is not clear how to open them. There are gizmos all around, but their purpose is unknown.
Sure, you could go up to a console and try pressing anything that looks like a button, but maybe it doesn't have buttons. Maybe it's thought-controlled, or motion sensitive, or photosensitive. Maybe it's autonomous and controlled by the craft itself. Maybe the controls are internalized or indistinguishable from other parts.
If it does have buttons, who's to say they won't open an air lock, or sound an alarm, or unleash a ravenous space monster, or inject you with toxins, or explode? If not on the first attempt, maybe the second. Maybe it all rests on how you press a button; the amount of pressure, the heat change, the electrical conductivity, the pigment of your skin, the alien words that sound closest to whatever you're thinking at the time, anything that an alien species might be able to operate easily because it's aware of the actual mechanism involved while you are not.
That's an example where you're trying to solve
one problem. If all of the devices are vastly different in design and purpose, why should we expect a button on one to have the same effect as a like button on another? If the aliens are nice enough to feed you and take you out for walkies, you might be able to figure out a few of these, but it would take a considerable amount of time.
[...] to create and easily understand symbolic representations of computation and sensory input [...]
I have no objection to this.
[...] to detach modes of thought from raw sensory and perceptual input.
Again, because there is no indication of how they arrived at this conclusion, I cannot accept it.