PT150 S1 P4 Q21 ExplanationEvolutionary Implications of Cooking

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Correct84% picked this

   Small teeth and jaws limit the ability of humans to routinely

   Why this is right

   This is pretty Main Point - adjacent. The main point was that "the adoption of cooking has led to evolutionary changes to our anatomy, such that now we are adapted to cooked food and cannot survive on raw food". Oh, yeah? What changes to our anatomy? "Well, tooth and jaw size have decreased, and maybe some stuff with the digestive system." So this answer might be pretty intuitively appealing from our understanding of the gist of the passage. Otherwise, we would find supporting text in the first two sentences of the 2nd paragraph. ... what limits the ability of humans to utilize raw food. The principal effect of cooking considered to date has been a reduction in tooth and jaw size.

   Skill tested: Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

   84%
2. B

   Out of Scope: reliance on plants2% picked this

   Because of its reliance on plants in its diet, Homo ergaster had a smaller intestinal volume

   All we know about Homo ergaster is that during its evolution about 1.9 million years ago, its tooth and jaw size reduced. We have no idea whether it relied on plants in its diet. We have no idea what its intestinal volume is. It should feel very trappy in the Word Salad way we see that this answer is tossing together a character from the 2nd paragraph with wording (intestinal volume) from the 3rd paragraph.

   2%
3. C

   Too Strong: did not2% picked this

   Early humans did not utilize plants for food prior to the

   Nothing in this passage is drawing a harsh, absolute line like, "Prior to point X, humans never used plants for food". The passage is saying that once we adopted cooking and then evolution changed us anatomically over thousands of thousands of years, we have now gotten to the point where we would struggle to survive on an uncooked diet, because much raw plant food has low digestibility. That's all we hear about plants, and that's miles away from saying, "Humans didn't eat plants until we started cooking".

   2%
4. D

   Too Strong: primarily Contradicted, if anything10% picked this

   The properties of the human digestive anatomy are primarily the result of adaptation to

   In the final paragraph it says that "human digestive anatomy differs from that of other great apes in ways that have traditionally been explained as adaptations to a high raw-meat diet". That sentence is saying the differences between our digestive anatomy and that of other great apes has traditionally thought to be primarily the result of a high raw-meat diet. But this answer is saying "the properties of our digestive anatomy (overall) are primarily the result of adapting to high-meat diet". But more importantly, the authors don't buy into that hypothesis. They say that these differences "may therefore be at least as well explained by the adoption of cooking as by eating raw meat".

   10%
5. E

   Too Strong2% picked this

   The human digestive anatomy has changed little over

   Too Strong: changed little Opposite, if anything Since the central thesis of this passage is that the adoption of cooking has led to significant anatomical changes over evolutionary time, it would seem to go counter to the thesis to say "human digestive anatomy has changed little over evolutionary time". The final paragraph is saying it's very hard for us to figure out how the digestive anatomy has changed because soft stuff like intestines and colons don't leave fossils that we can see thousands or millions of years later. But the authors would presumably believe that changes have occurred.

   2%