#23 - Global Reference, Must Be True, Author's Perspective

[menkenj]

The author discusses the hypothesis that humans adapted as a result of their eating cooked food.
Is B wrong because the answer choice is stated as a conditional, while the argument is causal?
I feel like there is something else wrong with B but I can't put my finger on it. Can someone please help?

Thanks!
Julie

[Adam Tyson]

Answer B is much too strong for this author, Julie. Throughout the passage the author talks about what might be true and what the evidence suggests. He uses words like "possible" and "implication," which are less certain than the language in that answer choice. That's why we cannot select it - we don't have evidence strong enough to support it!

[menkenj]

Revisiting this passage months later and I fell for AC (B) again.
Ugh.

[landphil]

How is it E when the passage says "The principal effect of cooking considered to date has been a reduction in tooth and jaw size over evolutionary time." Doesn't that confirm a biological adaptation?

[Jeff Wren]

Hi landphil,

The wording of that sentence (lines 30-32) is tricky and can be easy to misread.

The key words here are "considered to date." What this means here is that up to now ("to date"), the main effect of cooking that scientists have considered is the reduction in tooth and jaw size. Scientists have "considered" this effect, or hypothesized that it is an effect, but that is not the same as definitively proven.

The authors' uncertainty about this claim is easier to see in the following sentence "Human tooth and jaw size show signs of decreasing approximately 100,000 years ago; we suggest that this was a consequence of eating cooked food" (lines 32-35). The authors are suggesting an explanation/theory but have not provided definitive proof.

Finally, in the very last sentence of the passage, the authors recommend additional testing between cooking and raw food models to better understand human digestive anatomy. This is precisely because more definitive evidence is needed.

[landphil]

Hi landphil,

The wording of that sentence (lines 30-32) is tricky and can be easy to misread.

The key words here are "considered to date." What this means here is that up to now ("to date"), the main effect of cooking that scientists have considered is the reduction in tooth and jaw size. Scientists have "considered" this effect, or hypothesized that it is an effect, but that is not the same as definitively proven.

The authors' uncertainty about this claim is easier to see in the following sentence "Human tooth and jaw size show signs of decreasing approximately 100,000 years ago; we suggest that this was a consequence of eating cooked food" (lines 32-35). The authors are suggesting an explanation/theory but have not provided definitive proof.

Finally, in the very last sentence of the passage, the authors recommend additional testing between cooking and raw food models to better understand human digestive anatomy. This is precisely because more definitive evidence is needed.

Ah I see that is very tricky! I took the tentativeness of "considered to date" to mean that the principal effect we have discovered thus far is a biological change in tooth/jaw but there could be a more principal/greater effect discovered later. I see how that is kind of a stretch now. Thanks!