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)
24.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ████████
a
The first paragraph ████████ █ ██████████ ██████████████ ███ ████████████ ███ ██████ █████████ █████████ ███ █████████ ████████████ ██ ███ █████ ███████████ ███ ███ █████ █████████ █████████ ███ █████████ ███████████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████████
The easiest way to eliminate (A) is to see that P3 doesn’t involve any “empirical disconfirmation” of something. Rather, the author points out how evidence traditionally seen as explained by one hypothesis (adaptation to a high-meat diet) might actually be explained by a different hypothesis (adaptation to cooking). This doesn’t constitute a disconfirmation of one hypothesis, though, because we don’t get any data that’s inconsistent with a hypothesis.
b
The first paragraph █████████ █ ██████████ ███████ ███ ██████ █████████ █████████ ██ ███████████ ██ ████ ███████ ███ ███ █████ █████████ █████████ ███ █████████ ████ ████ █████ ████ █████ ██████ ██ ████████
The easiest way to eliminate (B) is to see that P2 doesn’t provide an alternative to a theory described in P1. Rather, P2 provides evidence supporting the author’s theory in P1. P2 provides evidence that humans have biologically adapted to cooking.
c
The first paragraph ██████ ███ █ ██████ ███ ██████ █████████ ████████ █ ████████ █████████ ██ ████ ██████ ███ ███ █████ █████████ ████████ ██ ████ ██████████
The easiest way to eliminate (B) is to see that P2 doesn’t explore a possible objection to the claim the author argues for in P1. Rather, P2 provides evidence supporting the author’s theory in P1. P2 provides evidence that humans have biologically adapted to cooking.
d
The second and █████ ██████████ ████████ ███ █████████ ███████████ ████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ███████ ███ ███ █████████ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ██████████
What are the two proposals? That humans are biologically adapted to cooking, and that they’re not? If so, P2 and P3 don’t clarify the difference between those proposals. They describe evidence that might support the hypothesis that humans are biologicaly adapted to cooking.
e
The second and █████ ██████████ ███████ ███ ████████ █████████ ████████████ ██ █ █████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ██████████
This is the best answer. Notice that the author begins P2 by noting that important questions “therefore” arise concerning why humans typically can’t survive on raw food. The “therefore” indicates the author believes certain questions are are raised by (implied by) the claim made in P1 that humans are unable to survive on raw-food diets in the wild. “Empirical” in this context means that the questions that are raised involve things that we can observe or measure, such as what’s the correlation between tooth/jaw reduction and cooking practices? And is there a correlation between changes in digestive anatomy and cooking practices? The author explores those questions in P2 and P3.