Where intelligence is concerned the trend has been to conflate (i) _ with (ii) _, the notion being that the most intelligent adults stood out from their peers in grade school, and that those who indeed did were the ones who went on to make the most significant contributions to their fields.

The back ground talks distinctively on how an individual can be super smart in grade school and may or may not proceed to add something of lasting value during the period of growth to adulthood.

Smart adults are not always the smartest kids when their past is reviewd, and the smartest kids don't end up on most cases into the smartest adults type.

This narrative is basically concentrated on intelligence advancing early- PRECOCITY -and its implications at the later stage ofadulthood.

The Option(C) -probability- might seems likenthe answer but it is fragile to use in the case of the first blank. It seems right but lack content with the context, so (B) is the answer.

In the course of the second blank, we see some kind of conflation or mix up as in terms of early intelligence. In the sentence, the first phase after the two blanks as to do with the smartest kids and the second phase as the inference that these smartest kids are mostly the individuals that shows the great potential, are mainly creative in their adulthood.

The option (E) is not suitable as the choice here since this traits are expressed in people -early intelligence and potential.