PT145.S2.Q2 > Question

SECTION 1 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19

PASSAGE 4

Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 2 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6

PASSAGE 2

Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19

PASSAGE 4

Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 4 · lr

The anthropologist hypothesizes that cooking was probably the development that enabled humans to get enough calories from their food to support a larger brain. This is based on the observation that humans developed larger brains around the same time as starting to control fire, and the observation that it’s hard for people to get enough calories by eating raw food.

The anthropologist assumes that humans began to cook around the time they began to control fire.

The anthropologist also assumes that there isn’t another reason why people who eat raw food have more difficulty getting enough calories—for example, that they are not eating significantly less than people who eat cooked food.

This weakens the anthropologist’s hypothesis, as it rules out one possible mechanism for how cooking food increases the number of calories available from that food—that is, that cooking could add more calories to the food.

This is irrelevant, because the argument only compares raw food to cooked food. Comparisons between different types of raw food don’t help us support the anthropologist’s hypothesis.

This weakens by effectively ruling out the cooking of food as a mechanism for humans to get more calories from less food; instead, this would mean that cooking food makes no difference to how many calories humans can get from it.

This strengthens the anthropologist’s hypothesis by providing a mechanism for humans to get more calories from cooked food than raw food.

This is irrelevant, because we don’t have any information about when humans started eating domesticated plants and animals in relation to when they started using fire. Without a timeline, this can’t help us.

PrepTest 145 - Section 2 - Question 2

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action