Evolutionary Implications of Cooking

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad 3rd Match8% picked this

   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

   Skipping right to the 3rd ingredient, it doesn't seem at all like "discuss a toss-up question about whether human guts are different from ape guts based on raw-meat or cooking". An "empirical disconfirmation" of a prediction would mean that there was a prediction, an experiment or measurement was conducted, and the data from that experiment/measurement didn't match the prediction. The last paragraph doesn't have any data/measurement from an experiment that is refuting a prediction.

   8%
2. B

   Bad 2nd/3rd Match8% picked this

   The first paragraph describes a scientific theory, the second paragraph considers an alternative to that theory, and the third paragraph describes the empirical test

   Skipping right to the 3rd ingredient, the final paragraph is proposing that we continue to research whether human gut changes are the result of eating raw meat or developing cooking, but it doesn't describe the empirical test that would show which idea is right. It would also be wrong to say that the 2nd paragraph considers an alternative theory. The 2nd paragraph gets into specifics about the theory in the 1st paragraph that "learning to cook led to specific adaptations."

   8%
3. C

   Bad 2nd / 3rd Match6% picked this

   The first paragraph argues for a claim, the second paragraph explores a possible objection to that claim, and the third

   Skipping right to the 3rd ingredient, the last paragraph was not a response to an objection. The last paragraph kind of opens up a brand new topic: "are human guts different from ape guts based on raw-meat or cooking?" The 2nd paragraph definitely does not have an objection to the claim that the 1st paragraph argues for. The 2nd paragraph is supporting the claim that the 1st paragraph argues for.

   6%
4. D

   Bad Last Match8% picked this

   The second and third paragraphs describe the empirical predictions that clarify the difference between the two proposals outlined

   This is saying that the last paragraph describes an empirical prediction. What is an empirical prediction? It would be something like, "If this idea is true, then we should see that X is true." The two proposals outlined in the first paragraph would presumably be: 1. learning to cook would not have led to any changes in human digestive anatomy (teeth, jaw, guts) 2. learning to cook did lead to changes in human digestive anatomy (after all, we can no longer survive on a raw-food diet) The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs don't seem to be clarifying the difference between those two proposals. They are all about going into more detail about Proposal 2.

   8%
5. E

   Correct70% picked this

   The second and third paragraphs explore the possible empirical implications of a claim made in

   Why this is right

   To be honest, if I were using the ol' Last Ingredient shortcut and I read this answer choice on a first pass, I would defer but assume it was probably wrong. It doesn't seem flagrantly wrong, as some of the others did, but it's not intuitively appealing. What claim was made in the first paragraph whose implications were discussed in P2 and P3? Well, the most natural place to look for a Framing Idea that would get unpacked is the end of the first paragraph: Selection for efficiency at using diets of high caloric density (i.e. meat?) led to an inability to survive on raw-food diets in the wild. If I'm dumbing that down, it sounds like it's saying: we learned to cook, we were able to then be more efficient at eating high-calorie foods, we then adapted to this new diet ("selected for"), and this led to us not being unable to survive on raw-food diets in the wild. The second paragraph begins, "Important questions therefore arise". This sounds like it could be setting up possible empirical implications. The second paragraph covers the effects (empirical implications) of cooking on tooth and jaw size. In the middle of the 2nd paragraph, the authors say "we suggest that [this reduction in tooth and jaw size] was a consequence of eating cooked food". That is exploring a possible empirical implication of the claim that learning to cook led to adaptations that now make it hard for us to live on raw-food. The third paragraph explores the potential effects on cooking on the soft parts of the digestive system. "The evolution of the soft parts" is a possible empirical implication of the claim that learning to cook led to adaptations that now make it hard for us to live on raw-food. The author is more tentative about announcing that the human digestive system was changed by learning to cook, but she is still "exploring this as a possible empirical implication". It seems like in this answer choices, we're supposed to interpret empirical implications of a claim as "measurable, observable consequences of the thing were were talking about".

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

   70%