>

Studies calculate what chance would be based on the specific factors involved in a given test. 
For instance, if there are 4 options for each question, with only one correct answer, then chance would likely be nearer to 25% than 50%. 
Additionally, a test given as part of an experiment isn't designed with the same intention as a test given in a college course. It's possible to design a test for an experiment wherein the highest expected score is 50%, whereas a test in an academic setting that students were only expected to get half the questions correct would cause some issues. 
Without context, a score of 50% really tells us very little.
The headline proves that humans CAN learn despite what you experience in your own family. >

Nature is healing >

i seen a gorilla get obvious silent treatment from his girl while he struggled to stay positive with the baby climbing all over him, that did it for me. >

Their hand gesture language really comes in handy whenever they vacation in Italy. >

Rome airport sucks, ..always lose samsonite luggage, just use Milan airport. 
I like bananas and masturbation… >

It's like looking in a mirror >

Apes together, strong! >


Volunteers watched videos of the chimps and bonobos gesturing, then selected from a multiple choice list of translations.
The participants performed significantly better than expected by chance, correctly interpreting the meaning of chimpanzee and bonobo gestures over 50% of the time. 

I feel like getting >50% on a multiple choice test should not be summarized as conclusively as "Signs used by apes understood by humans". A competent test taker (and considering how this type of research goes, there's a strong probability a majority of the survey population were students familiar with test taking) could easily get over 50% on a multiple choice test with no understanding of the subject at hand.