PT150.S1.P4.Q27

PrepTest 150 - Section 1 - Passage 4 - Question 27

Hide analysis
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)
Show answer
27.

The authors' primary purpose in ███ ███████ ██ ██

a

describe a scientific ██████

This doesn’t capture the author’s hypothesis. Even if you think the fact humans can’t survive on only raw food is a puzzle, since she provides a potential answer to the puzzle, her primary purpose should involve the author’s answer — that humans are biologically adapted to eating cooked food as a result of cooking. Notice that the author also provides some specific aspects of human evolution that she believes limit our ability to eat raw food. This shows that her purpose isn’t mainly to describe a puzzle; it’s to provide answers to the puzzle.

22%
b

identify a common ██████████ █████████████

You might think that the view that cooking would not have led to changes in human digestive anatomy is a “common scientific misconception.” This isn’t supported, because the author never suggests that it’s “common” to hold this view. In any case, even if we accept that this is a a common scientific misconception (which is not clear), this is too narrow. (B) ignores the fact that in P2 and P3, the author discusses specific ways in which humans might have adapted biologically and the evidence that shows a potential causal relationship between human evolution and cooking.

12%
c

elucidate the meaning ██ █ ██████████ ██████████

(C) asserts that the primary purpose is to explain the meaning of a hypothesis. This doesn’t capture the author’s opinion. She isn’t merely trying to explain what a hypothesis means. She supports a hypothesis and is trying to convince the reader that the hypothesis is plausible.

10%
d

propose a scientific ██████████

This best captures the purpose, which is to present her hypothesis that humans biologically adapated to cooked foods as a result of cooking, and to discuss some evidence that might support that hypothesis.

52%
e

undermine the support ███ █ ██████████ █████████

There’s no scientific principle that the author criticizes. Although the author does criticize the view that cooking couldn’t have affected human evolution because it’s too recent, that isn’t a scientific principle.

4%

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

It takes about five minutes.

Take the free diagnostic
More free LSAT prep: Sample LSAT questions Full-length diagnostic & practice test All free LSAT resources

Confirm action

Are you sure?