PT150 S1 P4 Q27 ExplanationEvolutionary Implications of Cooking

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   More than Description19% picked this

   describe a scientific

   There is a scientific puzzle, as the beginning of the 2nd paragraph suggests: "Important questions therefore arise ..." But the authors aren't just trying to describe it. They're trying to provide some actual answers. If this answer choice said "describe efforts to solve a scientific puzzle" it would seem fair. The fact that the authors of this passage have some conclusions they'd like to offer us makes "describe" too neutral and passive: - Selection for efficient use of high caloric density, we suggest, led to inability to survive on raw food. - Human tooth and jaw size shows signs of decreasing 100k years ago; we suggest that this was a consequence of eating cooked food.

   19%
2. B

   Trap13% picked this

   identify a common scientific

   Too Narrow Out of Scope: common scientific This answer seems to address the Challenge a Position (clarify a misconception) type thing going on in the first paragraph, but there are two problems with it as a correct answer: - it's only said that "it might reasonably have been expected" that adopting cooking would not have led to changes in human digestive anatomy. It never identifies that as a "common scientific misconception". It sounds like it could be referring to normal people, not necessarily how the scientific community feels. - this answer would leave out what's going on in paragraph 2 and 3, where we're already past the point of demonstrating the misconception. P1 is arguing we should be thinking that cooking changed human digestive anatomy. And P2 and P3 are exploring the ways in which it may have changed human anatomy.

   13%
3. C

   Weaker Match8% picked this

   elucidate the meaning of a scientific

   This answer seems fairly good. The author is definitely discussing the hypothesis that learning to cook changed human digestive anatomy (smaller teeth and jaws, and possibly smaller gut / longer small intestine / smaller colon). To "elucidate the meaning" is to make the meaning of something clear. It's a pretty weird usage to pair up "elucidate the meaning" with "scientific hypothesis". We certainly unpack the implications of a hypothesis (e.g. "if X is true, then that would mean Y and Z.") But that's not the same thing as elucidating the meaning. If I'm elucidating the meaning of "Black Lives Matter", I'm giving fuller context to the slogan, so that the listener understands it's a basic affirmation in response to police brutality that suggests otherwise. If I wrote a passage, though, that was like "Important questions, therefore, arise about how we should combat systemic racism. First of all, should we reallocate money from police departments into social work programs ... ", I'm not really elucidating the meaning of BLM. I'm talking about what its policy implications or goals would be. This answer could be stretched to fit the passage, but when we compare it to the correct answer, that one doesn't require any stretching.

   8%
4. D

   Correct55% picked this

   propose a scientific

   Why this is right

   There is a scientific hypothesis being proposed: learning to cook changed human digestive anatomy (smaller teeth and jaws, and possibly smaller gut / longer small intestine / smaller colon). Proposing this hypothesis captures the spirit of paragraph 1, because we're trying to explain why humans no longer can survive on wild, raw-food diets. The authors end paragraph 1 by saying - Cooking lets humans use diets of high caloric density more efficiently, and selection for efficient use of high caloric density, we suggest, led to inability to survive on raw food. This answer also captures paragraph 2, since the authors continue to refine the hypothesis they're proposing: Human tooth and jaw size shows signs of decreasing 100k years ago; we suggest that this was a consequence of eating cooked food. Paragraph 3, where the authors consider other causal claims that are still too poorly understood to be evaluated, is not really covered by this or any other answer choice. If we asked ourselves, "Why did these authors sit down to write this essay?", it seems reasonable to say that their #1 goal was to communicate the causal story (hypothesis) they have in mind for how cooking changed human digestive anatomy.

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

   55%
5. E

   Out of Scope: Scientific Principle5% picked this

   undermine the support for a scientific

   The authors do undermine a widespread assumption and a reasonable expectation in paragraph 1, but we never name a "scientific principle" that they're going against.

   5%