Q22

[ohthatpatrick]

ROGER wrote:

I keep getting wrong in the passage Number 4, Raw Food Passage, Q.22, I don't see the correct answer B) would be supported.

The typical pattern in any RC question that ask for the purpose of a detail
(f.e. "the author mentioned ____ in order to / primarily to")
is that the correct answer speaks not to the immediate detail, but to the larger point being made in that immediate vicinity.

So most correct answers sound like they reinforce the broader framing idea that came right before the detail. Some reinforce the broader takeaway that comes in the sentence right after the detail. Some reinforce the internal logic of the detail sentence (for example "Although [opposing claim], [detail]")

So as I look back at the passage to this parenthetical sentence, I'm really planning to see what bigger "bookend" ideas there might be.

Here, line 16-19 says:
the assumption that cooking is too recent a practice (to influence evolution) is wrong.
i.e.
cooking is NOT too recent a practice to influence evolution
i.e.
cooking started far enough back that it would have time to influence evolution

The parenthetical sentence is an example meant to substantiate that claim. As (B) says, it's trying to provide support for the idea that cooking is NOT too recent to be a factor, that cooking has been going on long enough to be a factor.

So (B) is reinforcing line 16-19 and follows the most common formula for a "purpose of detail" question: it points us back to the bigger idea immediately before the detail.


(A) The author is definitely not defining a necessary period of time. She is insinuating that 250,000 years is sufficient to possibly be an evolutionary factor.

(C) She's not pinpointing. This isn't super special and singular and important. It's parenthetical information to support a general notion that cooking may be at least a couple hundred thousand years old.

(D) The author's purpose in this whole passage is to do the opposite of this answer.

(E) Just like (A) and (C). There's nothing special about the specific time / place / cookware of the example. It's just an example to corroborate the idea that cooking may be at least a couple hundred thousand years old.


On these purpose of detail questions, the trap answers are often like (A), (C) and (E), where they're trying to make students focus on words within the detail sentence itself.

LSAT teachers are looking more at the words in the bookend sentences.

Hope this helps.

[RogerD345]

Thank you so much Patrick