Q25

[JeffB433]

Hello,

I do not understand why (B) is the correct answer for this question. Wouldn't this weaken the author's claim in the referred sentence if anything, as it is indicating that humans have recently, rather than anciently, started their biological adaptation (evolution)?

Thank you very much!

[MJ]

Hello,

I do not understand why (B) is the correct answer for this question. Wouldn't this weaken the author's claim in the referred sentence if anything, as it is indicating that humans have recently, rather than anciently, started their biological adaptation (evolution)?

Thank you very much!

Let me try this:
The author’s claim immediately preceding the parenthetical remark is “the assumption is wrong that if an event is too recent, it cannot cause/impact biological evolution ”. So to support the author’s claim, we are trying to counter the above “assumption”.

To counter the assumption we could either say1). Even recent event can impact biological evolution, or 2) the event is not that “recent”(as the author tried to do with the parenthetical remark)

(B) counter the assumption by the 1st way, thus supported the author’s claim. Please note the question is asking about the author’s claim preceding the parenthetical remark, not what he suggested with the parenthetical remark itself.

[JorgeL203]

Why are the 4 other answer choices incorrect?

I thought the answer was C because it indicated that cooking did not just start recently, but rather a long time ago (assuming that having fire indicated the presence of cooking, and the climate changes that produced the ice ages occurred not too recently).

[Misti Duvall]

Why are the 4 other answer choices incorrect?

I thought the answer was C because it indicated that cooking did not just start recently, but rather a long time ago (assuming that having fire indicated the presence of cooking, and the climate changes that produced the ice ages occurred not too recently).

Hi! Before reviewing the answer choices, it can be helpful to summarize the quoted text. Here, the quoted text basically says it's wrong to assume that the development of cooking 250,000+ years ago was too recent to impact human evolution. So we're looking for something that strengthens the idea that a change 250,000+ years ago could impact evolution.

(A) Out of scope. We don't care about the tools used.

(C) Out of scope. It doesn't matter why humans started using fire or what coincided with its use. We just need to support the idea that 250,000 years is an ok timeframe for evolutionary change.

(D) Out of scope. Nothing about the timeframe. And we don't know if this plant food was cooked or not.

(E) Out of scope. Nothing about the timeframe.

Answer choice (B) is correct because it supports the timeframe by providing an example of an evolutionary adaptation that took less than 250,000 years.

Hope this helps.