Q27

[JenaM342]

What line points us to D as the right answer? I put A. Thank you!

[TeresaL975]

Hello, this is my reasoning for the question. It might seem a bit fuzzy, but I hope that it is helpful!

The author holds a clear position regarding the issue "humans today are capable of living on raw food only under unusual circumstances" (line 6-8), so it seems that "a scientific puzzle"(A) is good.

However, the author also mentions "the widespread assumption that cooking could not have had any impact on biological evolution" (line 16-18) and disagrees with it. At the end of the first paragraph (line 23-27), the author provides an alternative explanation that it is the efficiency of using diets of high caloric density that led to an inability to survive on raw-food diets. These seem to suggest that the author is not describing a scientific puzzle but proposing a hypothesis for the scientific puzzle, so (D) is a better answer.

[YiZ98]

Can anyone please help explain why E is wrong?

I thought the point of the passage is to disagree with the first sentence of the passage -- adoptation of cooking actually DOES affect human diagestive atonomy (or, adopatation of cooking does has an impact on our biological evolution). Question 20 also seems to support this main idea.

If this is the case, isn't it the author's purpose to undemermine the view that adaptation to cooking has nothing to do with our evolution, which seems to be what E suggests?

Or is E incorrect because this does not count as a scientific principle?

Thanks!

[NickS909]

I'll try to give my take on choices A, D and E to hopefully help make it more clear!

A - this answer is wrong because the authors in this passage take a clear stance advocating/arguing for something. They introduce evidence, discuss implications of their hypothesis(paragraphs 2 and 3), but most importantly clearly take a position ( see the end of P1, "we suggest....") that we no longer are able to survive on raw food in the wild because of adaptations due to cooking.
For this to have been a "puzzle", I imagine the passage would have been the authors attempting to connect and place multiple bits of information/evidence all surrounding this idea of biological adaptation to cooking that have no clear link to each other. It would have also been more neutral in tone most likely with the authors not clearly pushing their stance but rather tying to flesh out all of the info we have related to this topic.

E- "undermine support for a scientific principle". If this were the case, the passage would have been structured around the argument they were trying to undermine(that humans have not biologically evolved due to cooking). Instead of discussing how humans biologically adapted to cooked food and the impact this adaptation had on our teeth/jaws and digestive tract, this would have all been information about why our human digestive anatomy has remained the same despite our increased reliance on cooking food over time, and then the authors would undermine that argument. The authors would have presented evidence for the opposing view and then ripped it apart or argue against it or provide counter evidence.
Remember, the question asks for "primary purpose of the passage". Even though you are right about the passage starting with a nod towards an opposing viewpoint, is that really the primary focus of the passage? Or is the primary focus of the authors in the passage best encapsulated by answer D...

D- "propose a scientific hypothesis". Looking at the end of paragraph 1, we see the authors clearly taking a stance on this topic, after introducing information/evidence earlier in paragraph one. In subsequent paragraphs they discuss the evidence in our anatomy over time relating to this hypothesis, but the entire passage is guided by the authors' view that we did in fact biologically adapt to cooking food/ are unable to survive on raw diets in the wild.