Reading comp PrepTest 150 · Section 1 · Question 23

Passage

Questions 20-27  .       It might reasonably have been expected that the  . adoption of cooking by early humans would not Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Science


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • Old belief (cooking didn't change our anatomy) vs. new belief (our anatomy evolved to require cooking)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Old view:
      • Cooking didn't lead to any anatomical changes because cooking doesn't require adaptations (first and second sentence)
      • Cooking didn't affect our evolution because the practice is too recent (sixth sentence)
    • New view
      • We can only subsist on raw food in unusual circumstances, which suggests we evolved to need cooking to consume high-calorie diets efficiently (third, fifth, eighth, and last sentences)
      • There's evidence of cooking 250,000 years ago, so cooking is ancient enough to affect our anatomy (seventh sentence)
    • Example of a rare situation in which we could subsist on a raw diet:
      • Relatively sedentary lifestyle in a well-supported urban environment (third sentence)
    • Cause-and-effect relationship:
      • Cooking caused humans to consume high-calorie diets efficiently (eighth sentence)
      • Natural selection for the humans who used high-calorie diets efficiently caused an inability to survive on raw-food diets (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "might reasonably have been expected" (first sentence); "Important theoretical obstacles" (fourth sentence); "so evolutionarily constrained" (fifth sentence); "appears to be wrong" (sixth sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Hypothesis: Cooking led to smaller tooth and jaw size
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Cause-and-effect relationships, according to the author:
      • Cooking caused smaller tooth and jaw sizes about 100,000 years ago (second through fourth sentences)
      • Also possible that the evolution of Homo ergaster 1.9 million years ago caused smaller tooth and jaw sizes, and new cooking techniques like boiling caused the reduction of tooth and jaw size 100,000 years ago (fifth and last sentences)
    • Author's attitude:
      • "Important questions" (first sentence); "we suggest" (third sentence); "brodly explicable" (fourth sentence); "also posssible" (fifth sentence); "may prove" (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • Hypothesis: Cooking led to a different digestive system
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Comparison:
      • Humans' digestive systems are different from other great apes, traditionally explained as an adaptation to a diet high in raw meat (second sentence)
      • Examples of differences between human and ape digestive systems:
        • Humans have smaller guts, longer small intestines, and smaller colons than other great apes (third sentence)
      • Cause-and-effect relationship, according to the author:
        • A high-calorie diet caused the differences in humans' digestive systems (fourth sentence)
        • Therefore, cooking may have caused the differences in humans' digestive systems (fifth sentence)
      • Author's attitude: "harder to reconstruct" (first sentence); "may therefore be at least as well explained" (fourth sentence); "therefore warranted" (last sentence)

Main Point: Current evidence suggests that cooking changed humans' evolutionary history and led to an inability to survive on a raw-food diet in most circumstances.

Key Lines?

Paragraph 1, Sentences 8-9 (P1, S8-9) - Author's central hypothesis

P2, S3 - Author's sub-hypothesis #1

P3, S4 - Author's sub-hypothesis #2

Meta-Structure?

Proposing a Hypothesis: We think this passage best fits the Proposing a Hypothesis Meta-Structure. In such a passage, the author typically makes a prediction or offers an untested explanation of a phenomenon*. The author might also posit questions that need to be addressed before the explanation can be accepted or rejected.

This passage follows this progression closely. The author relays some recent evidence that has overturned old beliefs about cooking and the human anatomy before offering the central hypothesis: cooking changed humans' evolutionary history and led to an inability to survive on a raw-food diet in most circumstances (P1, S5-9). The author uses the remaining paragraphs to describe two sub-hypotheses. The author thinks that cooking may have caused smaller tooth and jaw sizes (P2, S3) and changed the human digestive system (P3, S4). The author also describes some questions that still need to be addressed (P2, S6; P3, S5).

In a Proposing a Hypothesis passage, the main point is generally the author's central hypothesis. This author summarizes the central hypothesis at the end of the first paragraph. We further condensed that main point to: "Current evidence suggests that cooking changed humans' evolutionary history and led to an inability to survive on a raw-food diet in most circumstances."

*Some test-takers may believe this is a Phenomenon/Explanation passage. Such a designation would be OK if they didn't conclude that the author is certain of the explanations in this passage. Typically, we want to reserve the Phenomenon/Explanation Meta-Structures for passages that describe one or more tested explanations that have been accepted or rejected. Note how, in this passage, the author qualifies the explanations with phrases that reveal the explanations have not yet been fully tested or accepted ("we suggest" (P1, S9); "also possible" (P2, S5); "may prove to" (P2, S6); "may therefore be at least as well explained" (P3, S4)).

Causality: As is the case in many science-themed passages, Causality is the predominant minor Meta-Structure in this passage. In fact, the author's main point is causal: cooking caused changes in humans' ability to subsist on raw food. When the main point is causal, we can expect several other causal premises to bolster that main point. We've summarized all the cause-and-effect relationships in the Passage Summary. However, to answer questions quickly and confidently, it's helpful to understand the three central relationships:

  • Cooking caused humans to eat high-calorie diets efficiently, which caused an inability to subsist on raw diets (P1, S8-9)
  • Cooking may have also caused smaller tooth and jaw sizes around 100,000 years ago (P2, S3)
  • Cooking may have also caused changes in humans' digestive systems (P3, S4).

Last Thoughts?

Like the diet that cooking enabled, the first paragraph is dense and hearty. The author gives us a lot of information in that paragraph. If we didn't stop to consider how each of the pieces fit together, we may have had trouble understanding the rest of the passage, which would affect our ability to discern the main point, author's attitude, and Meta-Structure. If you had trouble understanding how the evidence about raw food and "earth ovens" related to the old beliefs about cooking and evolution or to the author's hypothesis, you may have read the first paragraph too quickly.

Remember, these passages want to convey a lot of information in as little space as possible. Each sentence has a vital role in the passage's overall argument. While we don't need to be an expert in every sentence, we should at least understand how the sentences form a coherent whole. If you had trouble appreciating the big-picture in this passage, consider slowing down and pausing to reflect on the passage's overall after each sentence or when you reach "pivot" words (like "However" in the third sentence or "Furthermore" in the sixth).

Question prompt

The authors would be Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: E

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Social Science

Strategy Overview

Review the main point, and use notes or highlighted/underlined text in the passage to recall the author's attitude, and find the answer that best reflects your understanding of the main point/author's attitude

Answer Anticipation

This question repeats the same prompt used just two questions ago. We'll use the same strategy we used on that question. To find the answer choice the author agrees with, we'll rely on our big-picture understanding of the passage. We should start by reminding ourselves of the main point. We can also review any notes about the author's attitude or any text we highlighted because it expressed the author's opinion. After doing that, we can head to the answer choices, tabling those that don't line up with the main point. For those answer choices that conform to the author's main point, we'll use our notes and the passage to see if it's correct.

Answer choices

  1. A
    A raw-food diet is Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Is this consistent with the author's main point or what you remember about the author's beliefs?

    No. This completely contradicts the author's main point. The author concluded that cooking made us unable to survive on a raw-food diet in most circumstances (P1, S7-8). Therefore, the author would say a raw-food diet would be significantly less healthy than our traditional diet — most of us literally could not survive on a raw-food diet.

  2. B
    Humans would not be Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Is this consistent with the author's main point or what you remember about the author's beliefs?

    No, this reverses the cause and effect in the author's main point. The author's main point is that cooking allowed humans to consume many calories efficiently, which led to biological adaptations that necessitated a cooked-food diet (P1, S7-8). This answer choice suggests that the biological adaptions led to our ability to consume many calories from cooked food. The author would not necessarily agree with that. In fact, there were presumably many generations of humans that harnessed the benefits of cooked food even though humans were not yet biologically adapted to subsist on cooked food.

  3. C
    Early humans controlled fire Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Is this consistent with the author's main point or what you remember about the author's beliefs?

    This isn't inconsistent with the author's main point. In all likelihood, you don't remember if the author ever mentioned fire, besides the reference to cooking with fire that we reviewed for the last question (P1, S6). In that case, we shouldn't search the passage to see if we can find any references to fire. (Using CTRL/Command + F to search for "fire" wouldn't be dispositive because the author could have used a near-synonym like "flames" or "heat.") Instead, we should table this answer choice and review the remaining. If we can eliminate the field, we'll select (C). But if we see something that is recognizably consistent with the author's main point, we'll research that one to see if it is correct.

    That approach should result in us selecting the correct answer rather than (C). The author never says that humans controlled fire before they adopted the practice of cooking, so we have no idea if the author would agree with this answer choice.

  4. D
    The practice of eating Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Is this consistent with the author's main point or what you remember about the author's beliefs?

    Well, this doesn't exactly contradict the main point. You may remember the passage's only reference to sedentary lives and feel comfortable eliminating (D). If you don't recall this reference, that's OK too. In that case, check (E) to see if it's recognizably consistent with the author's main point. If it is, review the passage to confirm that it's correct. If (E) isn't consistent with the author's main point, we can review (D) and any remaining answer choices to see which is correct.

    Following this procedure should result in you selecting the correct answer rather than (D). If you needed to review (D), however, you'd see that the author says that a "relatively sedentary lifestyle" is a requirement of subsisting on raw food, not cooked food (P1, S3). Therefore, the author would almost certainly disagree with this claim.

  5. E
    Empirical evidence does not Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem

    (E) Is this consistent with the author's main point or what you remember about the author's beliefs?

    Yes. If we go back to the passage's Meta-Structure, we can remember this is a Proposing a Hypothesis passage. In these passages, the authors believe their hypotheses are correct but recognize that further testing is needed before they are accepted.

    And that is certainly true in this passage. Notice how the author qualifies their claims with phrases that reveal that the author's hypothesis has not yet been fully tested or accepted ("we suggest" (P1, S9); "also possible" (P2, S5); "may prove to" (P2, S6); "may therefore be at least as well explained" (P3, S4)). The author also explicitly acknowledges that some questions need to be answered and some testing must be undertaken (P2, S1; P3, S5). For all of these reasons, the author would definitely agree that empirical evidence before we accept that humans developed biological adaptations to a diet of cooked food.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 3%
  2. B 28%
  3. C 9%
  4. D 8%
  5. E Credited 52%

Deeper help

Ask follow-ups on any step

Optional AI tutor mode will let you interrogate assumptions, compare answers, and drill weak patterns without leaving the page.

Human-written explanations stay primary; AI is an add-on when you want it.

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion