#25 - Specific Reference, Strengthen

[jona_zx]

So here is the problem I am having with this question. If I only read the highlighted text, I can see how be can be correct. But when you read the parenthesis following the highlighted text, it becomes clear that the author sees that the error is in the thinking that cooking started recently. B, however, makes the point that recency is not a requirement for adaptation. So it does support the highlighted text on its own, but not the author's view. Is this some sort of question where we should not look at the surrounding text like we usually are advised to do?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi jona_zx!

In general, to your question, it's always advisable to look to the surrounding text. The surrounding text is important for understanding the context of a specific line reference that you may be given.

To me, the surrounding text here adds even more reason why (B) is correct. For example, the parenthetical text states that cooking dates back 250,000 years. And (B) states that something that happened only 5,000 years ago resulted in biological adaptation. If (B) were true, it would thus support the author's view that "the widespread assumption that cooking could not have had an impact on biological evolution because its practice is too recent appears to be wrong." (B) is saying that something much more recent than cooking resulted in biological adaptation, so cooking itself definitely would seem not too recent to result in such adaptation.