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)
22.
The primary purpose of
Question Type
Purpose in context (of word, phrase, or idea)
Structure
Immediately before the parenthetical sentence, the author claims that the assumption that cooking couldn’t have had any impact on biological evolution because the practice is too recent is wrong. The parenthetical sentence points out evidence that humans have been cooking for more than 250,000 years. The author offers this fact as one of the things that helps show the assumption described earlier is wrong. The practice of cooking is not recent — it’s been around a very long time.
a
identify the amount ██ ████ ████ ██ ████████ ███ █ ████████ ██ ████ ███ ██ ██████ ██ ██████████ █████████
The author doesn’t suggest that a behavior needs to be around for 250,000 years in order to impact our biology. Rather, the author believes 250,000 years is long enough for biological adaptation to occur. In other words, that timeframe is sufficient for adaptation. But we have no reason to think the author believes it’s necessary for human evolution.
b
provide support for ███ ████ ████ ███████ ███ ████ █████████ ███ █ ██████████ ████ ████
This best captures the purpose, which is to provide support for the iopinion that the assumption that cooking couldn’t have had any impact on biological evolution because the practice is too recent is wrong. The author mentions the 250,000 year figure to show that evidence of cooking goes back far longer than what others might consider “recent.”
c
pinpoint the time ███ █████ ████ ██████ ██████ ██████ ██ ███████ ██ ████████ █████
The author doesn’t suggest that we became unable to survive on raw-food diets about 250,000 years ago. Rather, the author suggests that the practice of cooking existed 250,000 years ago; our adaptation might have occurred much more recently.
d
undercut the suggestion ████ ███ ████████ ██ ███████ ████████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ █████ █████████ ███████
This doesn’t make sense as the purpose, because the author favors the view that cooking affected the human digestive anatomy. So she wouldn’t try to undercut that view.
e
indicate the particular ██████████ ████ █████ ██████ ████ ██ ████ ████
The author doesn’t mention “earth ovens” because she wants to show the technology that we used to cook food. She mentions “earth ovens” to provide evidence that we cooked 250,000 years ago; the specific technology we used isn’t important to the author’s point. The fact that we cooked is what the author cares about in that line.