Self-study
P1
It might reasonably have been expected that the adoption of cooking by early humans would not have led to any changes in human digestive anatomy. █████ ████ ███████ █████ ████ ██████ ██ ████ █████ █████ ████ ██ ███████ ███████████ ███ ████████ ██ ███████ ██████ █████ ███
Other People’s Argument ·
Cooking didn’t lead to changes in human digestive anatomy
Because cooking makes food easier to digest.
Counter Evidence ·
Humans generally cannot survive on only raw food
Too hard to digest.
Author's Position ·
Cooking is obligatory
Other People's Position Wrong ·
That there wasn't enough time for cooking to impact evolution
Evidence of cooking dates back at least 250k years.
Author's Hypothesis ·
Cooking evolutionarily changed human digestion
We evolved to efficiently digest high and densely caloric foods thanks to cooking. Now we are reliant on cooked foods and cannot survive on raw food alone.
P2
█████████ █████████ █████████ █████ ██████████ ████ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ █████ ███
Question ·
Why can't humans digest raw foods?
Answer ·
Tooth and jaw too small
Cooking resulted in decrease in tooth and jaw size. Evidence of cooking techniques developing and decreases in tooth and jaw size support the cooking hypothesis.
Author's Hypothesis ·
Decrease in size occurred even earlier
Author suggests that Homo ergaster (1.9m years old) could have developed cooking which reduced their tooth and jaw sizes.
P3
███ █████████ ██ ████ █████ ██ ███ █████████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ███████████ ███████ ████ █████ ██ ██████ ███████ ███
Phenomenon ·
Evolution of our guts
Harder to explain owing to lack of fossil records.
Other People's Hypothesis ·
Human guts evolved to digest raw meats
Smaller gut volume; longer small intestine; smaller colon.
Author's Interpretation ·
But the differences also fit with the cooking hypothesis
These features of our guts also fits with the cooking hypothesis.
Future Research ·
More testing required to better understand raw v. cooked
Passage Style
Critique or debate
Phenomenon-hypothesis (RC)
23.
The authors would be most ██████ ██ █████ ████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ███████████
a
A raw-food diet ██ █████████████ █████████ ███ ██████ ██████ ████ █ ███████████ █████
b
Humans would not ██ ████ ██ ███████ ██████ ████ ██ █████ ████ ██ ██████ █████ █████████ ████ ███ ███ ████████████ ███████ ██ ███
c
Early humans controlled ████ ████ ██████ ████ ███████ ███ ████████ ██ ███████ █████ █████
Not supported, because we simply have no evidence how long humans controlled fire before they started to cook. The author mentions that evidence of fire and “earth ovens” goes back more than 250,000 years. But did humans use fire long before cooking? We don’t know.
d
The practice of ██████ █ ████ ██ ██████ ████ ███ ███ ██████ ████████ █████ ██████ ████ ████ ██ ████ ██████████ █████████ ██████
Not supported, because the author never connects the widespread practice of eating cooked food to the beginning of sedentary lives. Although we a sedentary life is one of the unusual circumstances that might allow one to live on only raw food, there’s no other mention of sedentary lives.
e
Empirical evidence does ███ ███ ████████████ ████ ████ █████ ██████ █████████ ██████████ ███████████ ██ █ ████ ██ ██████ █████