Reading Comprehension

PT150 · S1 · P4 · Q22 Evolutionary Implications of Cooking

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

  • Save & drill this skill build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

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.

Topic

Evolutionary effects on humans of cooking

Framework

Old / New

Main Point

People used to think that humans' use of cooking probably didn't have any effect on digestive anatomy, but now we think we've evolved so much to having a cooked diet (our teeth, jaws, and possibly intestines) that we'd be unable to survive in most cases on a raw food diet.

Summary

FIRST PARAGRAPH

- It might reasonably have been expected that X. After all, Y. However, current evidence suggests ...

These rhetorical features warn us about what the passage will likely be doing. We open with an allusion to Old beliefs, or Typical beliefs, or usual assumptions, and then we get our Author's (but / yet / however / recently) Pivot right after that.

Upon reading the first sentence, we should already be pausing and saying to ourselves,

And we'd be right. That's essentially the main point right there.

From the "However" until the end of the first paragraph, we're getting the current evidence for the fact that cooking has changed us: - we wouldn't be able to live off raw food (except under special circumstances) - this suggests we've now evolved to a form that requires cooked food - there has actually been plenty of time (on an evolutionary scale) for these changes to take place, since we have evidence that cooking started over 250,000 years ago.

The author crystallizes her takeaways at the end of the first paragraph, saying

Because we could cook, we were able to eat a diet with more high caloric density food. Because we were able to eat that type of food, our bodies adapted ways to optimize eating that type of diet, and now we're so adapted to a cooked diet that we'd struggle to live on a raw diet.

SECOND PARAGRAPH

The topic sentence here indicates that this paragraph will be discussing questions about how we've changed, to be more adapted to a cooked diet. - there's a known change in the fossil record to our tooth and jaw size around 100,000 years ago. - the author thinks that was the restul of adapting to cooked food. - she thinks it's possible that cooking started over 1 million years ago and some adaptations occurred then, but then the adaptations seen around 100,00 years ago were ones that happened when we invented the concept of boiling water.

THIRD PARAGRAPH

Since this paragraph begins by saying , it looks like this paragraph still falls under the framing idea at the beginning of the 2nd paragraph: important questions therefore arise

We know that our guts are different from those of other great apes. Some people think it's because we eat more raw meat than apes do. This author thinks that "adaptations to cooking" could just as easily explain it.

She suggests a future research direction in the final sentence, to help determine which hypothesis is more likely.

22.

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

  1. identify the amount of time

    Too Strong: required

    The author isn't defining "250,000 years" as the minimum required time for a behavior to have an impact on biological evolution. She's just suggesting that 250,000 years is "enough" time for it to have had an impact.

    2% picked this

  2. Correct

    provide support for the idea

    Why this is right

    This answer isn't as good as a tweaked version of (A) would be, but it's not-wrong and it ends up being our best available answer. We were looking for something like "to suggest that cooking has been going on long enough to have impact on biological evolution". This answer doesn't talk about the biological evolution tie-in, but it does match up with "suggest that cooking has been going on long enough / it's not just a recent development".

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

    92% picked this

  3. pinpoint the time and place

    Too Strong: pinpoint / unable

    The author isn't saying that 250,000 years ago, with the first use of fire and earth ovens, humans spontaneously and immediately became unable to survive on raw-food. Rather, the passage is saying that over our 200,000+ year history of cooking, we have anatomically changed (at the glacial pace of evolutionary change) into a modern day form where we can no longer survive on raw-food diets in the wild.

    2% picked this

  4. undercut the suggestion that the

    Opposite

    The author isn't trying to "undercut" the idea that the adoption of cooking affected our anatomy. She's trying to build that case. She's supporting its plausibility by telling us that we've been cooking long enough (250k years) for us to have undergone anatomical change as a result.

    3% picked this

  5. indicate the particular technology that

    Wrong Purpose Detail-Sentence Bait

    This answer is just taking an ingredient from the detail sentence ("earth ovens") and trying to invent a role for it. We know the purpose of talking about these earth ovens wasn't the specific cooking technology; it was how long ago they existed! The author was trying to establish that we've been cooking for long enough that there is time for it to have impacted our biological form via evolution.

    2% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free