It might reasonably have been expected that the adoption of cooking by

Question

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. After
all, cooking makes food easier to eat, which means
  (5)   that no special adaptations are required to process
cooked food. However, current evidence suggests that
humans today are capable of living on raw food only
under unusual circumstances, such as a relatively
sedentary lifestyle in a well supported urban
  (10)   environment. Important theoretical obstacles to living
on raw food in the wild today include both the low
digestibility of much raw plant food, and the toughness
of much raw meat. These points suggest that humans
are so evolutionarily constrained to eating foods that
  (15)   are digestible and easily chewed that cooking is
normally obligatory. Furthermore, the widespread
assumption that cooking could not have had any
impact on biological evolution because its practice is
too recent appears to be wrong. (Various European
  (20)   and Middle Eastern sites that go back more than
250,000 years contain extensive evidence of hominid
use of fire and apparent “earth ovens.”) The implication
is that the adoption of cooked food created opportunities
for humans to use diets of high caloric density more
  (25)   efficiently. Selection for such efficiency, we suggest,
led to an inability to survive on raw-food diets in
the wild.

Important questions therefore arise concerning
what limits the ability of humans to utilize raw food.
  (30)   The principal effect of cooking considered to date has
been a reduction in tooth and jaw size over evolutionary
time. Human tooth and jaw size show signs of
decreasing approximately 100,000 years ago; we
suggest that this was a consequence of eating cooked
  (35)   food. Subsequent population variation in the extent
and timing of dental reduction is broadly explicable by
regional variation in the times when improvements in
cooking technology were adopted. It is also possible
that the earliest impact of cooking was the reduction
  (40)   of tooth and jaw size that accompanied the evolution
of Homo ergaster approximately 1.9 million years ago.
If so, the decrease in tooth and jaw size that started
around 100,000 years ago may prove to result from
later modifications in cooking technique, such as the
  (45)   adoption of boiling.

The evolution of soft parts of the digestive system
is harder to reconstruct because they leave no fossil
record. Human digestive anatomy differs from that of
the other great apes in ways that have traditionally
  (50)   been explained as adaptations to a high raw-meat
diet. Differences include the smaller gut volume, longer
small intestine, and smaller colon. All such features
are essentially adaptations to a diet of relatively high
caloric density, however, and may therefore be at least
  (55)   as well explained by the adoption of cooking as by
eating raw meat. Testing between the cooking and
raw-meat models for understanding human digestive
anatomy is therefore warranted.    1 
 1. Which one of the following most accurately states the main point of the passage?

(A) Important questions about why humans are unable to survive on raw food are unresolved by current science.
(B) Current evidence suggests that human beings are biologically adapted to the ingestion of cooked rather than raw food.
(C) The reduction of human tooth and jaw size over evolutionary time strongly suggests that humans underwent a change in their dietary habits.
(D) For at least 250,000 years, humans have been eating a diet that heavily features cooked food.
(E) No special biological adaptations were necessary for humans to eat cooked food, since cooking makes food easier to eat.

2 
 2. The authors would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements?

(A) Small teeth and jaws limit the ability of humans to routinely utilize raw food.
(B) Because of its reliance on plants in its diet, Homo ergaster had a smaller intestinal volume than modern humans do.
(C) Early humans did not utilize plants for food prior to the adoption of cooking.
(D) The properties of the human digestive anatomy are primarily the result of adaptation to a high-meat diet.
(E) The human digestive anatomy has changed little over evolutionary time.

3 
 3. The primary purpose of the parenthetical sentence near the end of the first paragraph is to

(A) identify the amount of time that is required for a behavior to have had an impact on biological evolution
(B) provide support for the idea that cooking has been practiced for a relatively long time
(C) pinpoint the time and place when humans became unable to survive on raw-food diets
(D) undercut the suggestion that the adoption of cooking affected the evolution of the human digestive anatomy
(E) indicate the particular technology that early humans used to cook food

4 
 4. The authors would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements?

(A) A raw-food diet is significantly healthier for modern humans than a traditional diet.
(B) Humans would not be able to utilize cooked food in their diet if during their evolution they had not biologically adapted to it.
(C) Early humans controlled fire long before they adopted the practice of cooking their food.
(D) The practice of eating a diet of cooked food did not become standard until humans were able to lead relatively sedentary lives.
(E) Empirical evidence does not yet definitively show that early humans developed biological adaptations to a diet of cooked food.

5 
 5. Which one of the following most accurately describes the structure of the passage?

(A) The first paragraph outlines a scientific hypothesis's two predictions, the second paragraph describes the empirical confirmation of the first prediction, and the third paragraph describes the empirical disconfirmation of the second prediction.
(B) The first paragraph describes a scientific theory, the second paragraph considers an alternative to that theory, and the third paragraph describes the empirical test that would show which theory is correct.
(C) The first paragraph argues for a claim, the 
second paragraph explores a possible objection to that claim, and the third paragraph responds to that objection.
(D) The second and third paragraphs describe the 
empirical predictions that clarify the difference between the two proposals outlined in the first paragraph.
(E) The second and third paragraphs explore the 
possible empirical implications of a claim made in the first paragraph.

6 
 6. Which one of the following, if true, would provide the most support for the authors' claim in the sentence immediately preceding the parenthetical remark in the first paragraph?

(A) Evidence from cut marks on animal bones suggests that early humans' hominid ancestors used stone flake tools to butcher animals.
(B) Human populations are estimated to have adapted biologically to drinking the milk of domesticated animals in 5,000 years or less.
(C) Archaeological evidence indicates that the adoption of fire use by humans coincided with climatic changes that produced ice ages.
(D) An increase in the quantities of the trace element strontium in bones of early humans indicates an increase in the quantity of plant foods in their diet.
(E) The fossil record indicates that the brain volume of hominid species started growing after tooth and jaw size started decreasing.

7 
 7. The authors suggest which one of the following in the second paragraph?

(A) Human teeth and jaws underwent their only major reduction in size about 100,000 years ago.
(B) Adaptation to cooked food limited the ability of humans to survive on a high-meat diet.
(C) The evolution of the human digestive system is not well understood.
(D) Cooking methods changed and improved over evolutionary time.
(E) Cooking was adopted by geographically diverse early human populations at the same time.

8 
 8. The authors' primary purpose in the passage is to

(A) describe a scientific puzzle
(B) identify a common scientific misconception
(C) elucidate the meaning of a scientific hypothesis
(D) propose a scientific hypothesis
(E) undermine the support for a scientific principle

RC Butler 2023  -  Practice Two RC Passages Everyday.   
Passage # 56 Date: 10-Mar-2023
 This question is a part of RC Butler 2023 .  Click here for Details

Source:   LSAT Official PrepTest 84   
 Difficulty Level:   700+

Sajjad1994 · Accepted Answer

Explanation

6. Which one of the following, if true, would provide the most support for the authors' claim in the sentence immediately preceding the parenthetical remark in the first paragraph?

Explanation

Step 1: Identify the Question Type

The question asks for something that would  “provide the most support”  for a claim in the passage. That makes this a Strengthen question, like the ones found in Logical Reasoning.

Step 2: Research the Relevant Text

The question refers to the authors’ claim immediately before the parenthetical in the  first paragraph . The parenthetical is in  lines 19–22 , so the claim being questioned is the one in  lines 16–19.

Step 3: Make a Prediction

The point being argued in  lines 16–19  is that people are wrong to assume that cooking started too recently to impact our evolution. In other words, the authors are arguing that cooking food could have impacted our evolution. As evidence, the authors over the information about õre and  “earth ovens”  being used 250,000 years ago. However, the authors assume that 250,000 years is sufficient time for biological adaptations to occur. If it takes a million years or more to adapt, then 250,000-year-old ovens aren’t going to be very convincing. To strengthen their argument, the authors would need further evidence showing that 250,000 years is enough time for people to adapt.

Step 4: Evaluate the Answer Choices

(B)  is correct. If it took only 5,000 years for humans to adapt to drinking milk, then 250,000 years should be more than enough time to adapt to eating cooked food.

(A)  is irrelevant. How humans cut up animals has no bearing on whether cooking the food impacted our biological evolution.

(C)  is a 180, at worst. Saying that early uses of õre and earth ovens coincided with ice ages could suggest that the õres were used for warmth, not cooking. If the 250,000-year-old õres weren’t used for cooking, then that oðers no help to the authors’ claims.

(D)  is irrelevant. The argument is not about what types of food people ate (plants versus meat). It’s about whether that food was cooked or not, and whether that impacted our biological evolution. This choice does not address that argument.

(E)  is Out of Scope. This pulls the tooth and jaw details from the second paragraph, and adds in information about brain volume. However, this does nothing to support whether or not any of these changes were due to humans cooking food.

Answer: B

Sahasssss · Answer

Can you please explain the answer to the 6th question?

Sahasssss · Answer

Wow I wasn't expecting such a detailed answer, Thank you for taking out the time. I'm really grateful.

uditr · Answer

Hi  Sajjad1994  can you please give an explanation of Q No 8 . I thought the main purpose of the passage was to identify a scientific misconception , the misconception being that people believe that eating cooked food can not lead to any evolutionary changes . This is also evident from the first line in the passage.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

8. The authors' primary purpose in the passage is to

Difficulty Level:   750

Explanation

Step 1: Identify the Question Type

The question asks for the  “primary purpose”  of the entire passage, making this a Global question.

Step 2: Research the Relevant Text

As with any Global question, the entire text is relevant. Instead of going back into the passage, refer to the Purpose as predicted while reading the passage.

Step 3: Make a Prediction

The authors’ purpose was informative, providing evidence to support their theory about cooked food impacting our evolution.

Step 4: Evaluate the Answer Choices

(D)  is correct, as the authors propose the hypothesis that cooked food impacted our evolution, and they provide evidence to support that hypothesis.

(A)  is a Distortion. The biological evolution of humans is never presented as a puzzle or something that needs to be solved.

(B)  is a Distortion. The authors do identify a potential misconception at the beginning, but the purpose of the passage is to correct that misconception and offer the new theory about cooked food impacting human evolution.

(C)  is a Distortion. The authors present a hypothesis and provide details about it, but they’re not trying to clarify what it means. They’re just presenting it as is.

(E)  is a Distortion. The authors provide evidence in support of their own theory. They’re not trying to undermine any other theory or principle.

Answer: D

nazii · Answer

HI
I omit D because the verb PROPOSE is associated with suggesting a new research topic or idea that needs to be explored further. However, in this text, I didn't find such. would you pls help with this ambiguity?

mailolo · Answer

Sir, please explain the what exactly are the empirical implications referred to in option E Q5)

MartyMurray · Answer

Implications are what we might expect to observe given something else, which may have been claimed, theorized, or observed.

In this case, the claim mentioned appears to be "Selection for such efficiency, we suggest, led to an inability to survive on raw-food diets in the wild."

Basically, all the points made in the second and third paragraphs are implications of that claim, and some examples of the implications are the following:

Important questions therefore arise concerning what limits the ability of humans to utilize raw food.

the decrease in tooth and jaw size that started around 100,000 years ago may prove to result from later modifications in cooking technique

Testing between the cooking and raw-meat models for understanding human digestive anatomy is therefore warranted.

Regarding why the implications are called "empirical implications," "empirical" means "based on or concerned with observation." So, it appears that the implications are called "empirical implications" because they are implications regarding what might be expected to be observed or what might be studied to see what will be observed.

Raman109 · Answer

Q7 - In the second paragraph, the authors discuss the reduction in tooth and jaw size and link this change to the cooking of food. They suggest that the size of human teeth and jaws decreased approximately 100,000 years ago, and this was possibly due to the adoption of cooked food. They also mention that regional variations in the timing of dental reduction might be explained by when improvements in cooking technology were adopted.

Option (D) "Cooking methods changed and improved over evolutionary time" is supported by the text. The authors imply that as cooking methods changed and improved, this could have influenced the physical evolution of humans, particularly in the development of their teeth and jaws. The paragraph suggests that variations in these evolutionary changes could correspond with the times and places where cooking methods advanced.

Thus, the authors suggest that the evolution of human anatomy, particularly teeth and jaws, is linked to the development and improvement of cooking methods over time.

Raman109 · Answer

Q6 - Option (B), "Human populations are estimated to have adapted biologically to drinking the milk of domesticated animals in 5,000 years or less," provides support for the authors' claim by showing that significant biological adaptations can occur within a relatively short evolutionary time frame. If humans could adapt to digesting milk, which is a post-weaning adaptation, in a few thousand years, this suggests that the adoption of cooking could also have a significant evolutionary impact within the time span of human evolution. It supports the idea that the practice of cooking, although relatively recent on an evolutionary scale, could have been around long enough to influence human biological evolution, challenging the assumption that cooking's impact is too recent to be reflected in our anatomy and biology.

hmandhan · Answer

Please explain option A in question 2?

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

2. The authors would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements?

Explanation

Step 1: Identify the Question Type

The correct answer here will be something with which the authors are  “most likely to agree,”  making this an Inference question.

Step 2: Research the Relevant Text

With no Content Clues or specific references, the entire text is relevant.

Step 3: Make a Prediction

A specific prediction will not be possible here. Instead, look for choices that stick to the bigger themes (humans started cooking food, our bodies evolved, and we can no longer eat raw food), and use clues in the choices to do any necessary research.

Step 4: Evaluate the Answer Choices

(A)   is correct. This is supported in the second paragraph, which raises the question of what limits our ability to utilize raw food. And that’s when the authors discuss the evolution of smaller teeth and jaws.

(B)  is not supported. The only reference to Homo ergaster is in  lines 38–41 . However, the lines only talk about the jaw and tooth size. There is no indication of the diet or intestine size of this human ancestor.

(C)  is a 180, at worst. The only reference to eating plants is in  line 12 , which suggests that we couldn’t live in the wild today because our bodies would have a tough time digesting raw plants. However, that’s a modern evolution. If anything, this suggests that our ancestors did eat raw plants, and our bodies have changed because we now cook our food.

(D)  is a 180. In the last paragraph, the authors do suggest that people traditionally believed this claim  (lines 48–50) . However, the authors then counter that by asserting their own, equally possible view—those features instead adapted due to our adoption of cooking food  (lines 52–56).

(E)  is not supported. There is no indication how much our anatomy has changed, but the authors present enough information to suggest it’s more than just a little.

Answer: A

Oppenheimer1945 · Answer

How would a normal human being answer Q8 correctly? There is no tone hence answer should allign with option B.

Just saying "Distortion" as an option is not a fruitful solution,

Shrey1 · Answer

The authors' primary purpose in the passage is to

(A) describe a scientific puzzle
(B) identify a common scientific misconception
(C) elucidate the meaning of a scientific hypothesis
(D) propose a scientific hypothesis
(E) undermine the support for a scientific principle

The answer is (D) propose a scientific hypothesis.

Here's why the other options are not the primary purpose:

(A) Describe a scientific puzzle: While the passage does mention a discrepancy between expectations and evidence (cooked food not requiring adaptations vs. humans needing cooked food), the main focus is on proposing a solution (cooking leading to digestive changes).

(B) Identify a common scientific misconception: The passage doesn't focus on a widely held misconception, but rather challenges the assumption that cooking couldn't impact evolution due to its recent adoption.

(C) Elucidate the meaning of a scientific hypothesis: The passage doesn't explain what a hypothesis is, but rather proposes one about the connection between cooking and digestive changes.

(E) Undermine the support for a scientific principle: The passage doesn't aim to disprove a fundamental principle, but instead questions the assumption that cooking can't influence evolution.

The key point is that the authors are suggesting a new explanation for the observed limitations of humans on a raw food diet. They propose the hypothesis that cooked food led to digestive changes, making raw food difficult to process over time. This aligns with option (D).

nikitathegreat · Answer

7. The authors suggest which one of the following in the second paragraph?

(A) Human teeth and jaws underwent their only major reduction in size about 100,000 years ago.
It is also possible
that the earliest impact of cooking was the reduction
(40) of tooth and jaw size that accompanied the evolution
of Homo ergaster approximately 1.9 million years ago.

So, then this is not 1L years ago

(B) Adaptation to cooked food limited the ability of humans to survive on a high-meat diet.
This option choice is incorrect because it specifically mentions high meat diet whereas the para talks in general about limiting the ability of raw food?  GMATNinja  - Can you please check this reasoning for rejecting the ans choice

(C) The evolution of the human digestive system is not well understood.
This is talked in the 3rd para

(D) Cooking methods changed and improved over evolutionary time.
Yes, the passage mentions this.

(E) Cooking was adopted by geographically diverse early human populations at the same time.
The passage mentions about improvements in cooking at differnt. 
Subsequent population variation in the extent
and timing of dental reduction is broadly explicable by
regional variation in the times when improvements in
cooking technology were adopted

balaganapathi · Answer

Sajjad1994  please post solution for Q5. Thank you!

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

5. Which one of the following most accurately describes the structure of the passage?

Explanation

Step 1: Identify the Question Type  
 The question asks for a description of the  “structure of the passage”  as a whole, making this a Global question.
 
  Step 2: Research the Relevant Text  
 Because the question asks about the entire passage, all of the text is relevant. Use the   margin notes   for the passage to get a sense of the structure.
 
  Step 3: Make a Prediction  
 The main point of the passage occurs in the first paragraph. Once that paragraph lays down the   main idea  , the remaining paragraphs expand on that idea and provide additional evidence about what it all means.
 
  Step 4: Evaluate the Answer Choices  
 
 (E)  is correct. The major claim is in the õrst paragraph, and the second and third paragraphs expand on that claim and explore its implications.

(A)  is a   Distortion  . The authors don’t make any predictions. And the third paragraph doesn’t disconõrm anything; it merely explains why there’s still need for
more testing.
 
  (B)  is a Distortion. The second paragraph expands upon the theory from the õrst paragraph; it doesn’t introduce an alternative theory. And the third paragraph suggests that further testing is needed, but it does not describe what that testing would entail.
 
  (C)  is a Distortion. Any alternative to the cooked-food theory doesn’t come up until the third paragraph, in which it’s claimed that a high raw-meat diet could
explain our current digestive anatomy. However, that’s just an alternative, traditional idea, not an objection to the authors’ cooked-food theory.
 
  (D)  is a Distortion. The authors only oðer one proposal in the õrst paragraph: that cooked-food diets are responsible for our anatomical evolutionary changes. 2

Answer: E

VidhiJ · Answer

Please explain the answer to the 1st question. Thank you!

MacT750 · Answer

can someone suggest the reason to reject option c in 1st question 
confused between b and c. though last para is more inline with option b but dosent the para also tells abt diet change from raw to cooked?

It might reasonably have been expected that the adoption of cooking by

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

It might reasonably have been expected that the adoption of cooking by

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards