Q23

[AnnaL176]

Could you please explain why answer E is right, rather than B?

Thank You.

[Theodorew728]

If it helps, I got 23 wrong as well. Passage-4 was, for me, the toughest passage. When selecting B, I didn't like it. Didn't it seem anachronistic? How would evolution drive people to cooking? The entire passage was about how cooking drove people to evolve. But E seemed even worse. Doesn't all of paragraph-2 describe tooth-and-jaw evidence and the biological adaption to cooked food? Upon review, it seems, "empirical" aka "testing" is the key word of the whole question. Lines 56-58 show the author calling for further "testing."
That's my two-cents. Let me know what you think.

[LSATN100]

(B) is wrong because it uses a conditional statement, whereas the passage is describing a causal relation.
What the passage says is [cooking ---(cause)---> evolution]
(B) says [cooking -> evolution]
We cannot equate a causal relationship with a conditional relationship, even if they look the same when we use arrows to represent them.

(E) can be found in the last two sentences of the last paragraph.
It says that the changes in the digestive system can be explained by either the adoption of cooking or the adoption of eating raw meat.
"Testing between the cooking and raw meat models for understanding human digestive anatomy is therefore warranted" = we need further tests on the cooking model and the raw meat model to better know which one explains the changes in the digestive system.
So the author thinks that we don't know if the changes in the digestive system certainly result from the adoption of cooking.

[StratosM31]

Ugh, also got this wrong to be honest, but after BR (E) seemed very obvious. But tough passage in general, not because of the content, but because it was harder than usual to figure out the structure of the arguments. Especially in the 1st paragraph, I had to read the text twice in order to fully understand the author's point. I hope this makes you guys feel better

(B) is wrong because the text simply does not say this. The author's proposition is that our digestive system got biologically adapted to utilize cooked food better, thus not being able to survive on raw food in the wild anymore. It doesn't mean, though, that without this evolutionary process, we would not have been able to utilize cooked food. The thesis is that the adoption of cooking led to biological evolutions, not that biological evolutions led to utilization of cooked food. One can also use common sense here: wouldn't we still be able to chew cooked meat if we had large jaws and sharp teeth?

(E) is not only obvious in the last paragraph, but in the whole text (line 6: current evidence suggests, line 13: these points suggest, line 25: we suggest etc.). Nothing is definitively shown or proven...

[RuthS478]

Can a teacher walk through this question and why B is wrong?

[LOGAN a834]

It reimburses expenses for the unused portion of your trip and additional costs incurred due to the interruption. Discover how travel insurance acts as a safety net, preventing unexpected events from causing a ripple effect on your travel experience. https://traveldefend.com/chile-travel-insurance/