LSAT Prep Test 84 - Reading Comprehension - Answers (No Explanations)

Evidence that the earth’s atmosphere has warmed has become quite compelling, in part because it has been reinforced recently by the development of accurate profiles of average annual temperatures (5) throughout the last 1,000 years. These data, inferred from studies of geological patterns and samples of ice deposits, tree rings, and coral growth layers, indicate that the recent increase in average temperature—a rise of about one half of a degree Celsius over the last (10) 100 years—is unprecedented in the previous 1,000 years. At the same time, other recent studies have strengthened the controversial link between this increase and the “greenhouse effect.” Proponents of the greenhouse effect claim that the increase was (15) caused by elevated levels in the atmosphere of certain gases that prevent heat from radiating back into space.

Early models charting the greenhouse effect were somewhat inconsistent with observed data; they estimated that the increase in the earth’s atmospheric (20) temperature over recent decades should have been higher than the increase observed in actuality, which led opponents to question the validity of the greenhouse theory. But new methods have enabled scientists to gauge the effect of greenhouse gases more accurately (25) by taking into account an important factor that earlier studies overlooked: airborne sulfates. Sulfates from natural sources such as volcanoes as well as from human technological sources tend to counteract the heating effect of greenhouse gases by reflecting solar (30) energy back into space. Taking into account the varying levels of airborne sulfates indicated by the concentration of sulfates in successive ages of glacial ice, these scientists have calculated theoretical temperatures for recent decades that are consistent (35) with observed temperatures.

Another question for proponents of the greenhouse theory comes from scientists who have attempted to tie changes in the earth’s atmospheric temperature to variations in solar energy. From observations of cycles (40) in several types of solar phenomena, these scientists have developed models that chart variations in the sun’s heating effects, and the models do show a strong decade-by-decade correspondence between solar activity and atmospheric temperature fluctuations. But (45) the models cannot account for the entirety of the recent rise in atmospheric temperature. While researchers have found that the average annual atmospheric temperature fluctuates from one year to the next, its temperature over the long term has been relatively (50) stable—deviations from the long-term average atmospheric temperature have inevitably reverted to this average, or equilibrium, temperature. But the current rise in temperature surpasses the most extreme fluctuations in temperature consistent with the models (55) based on variations in solar energy. In light of all this, it seems reasonable to conclude that changes in the earth’s atmosphere have raised its equilibrium temperature, and that greenhouse gases represent the best explanation of that shift.

Evidence that the earth’s atmosphere has warmed has become quite compelling, in part because it has been reinforced recently by the development of accurate profiles of average annual temperatures (5) throughout the last 1,000 years. These data, inferred from studies of geological patterns and samples of ice deposits, tree rings, and coral growth layers, indicate that the recent increase in average temperature—a rise of about one half of a degree Celsius over the last (10) 100 years—is unprecedented in the previous 1,000 years. At the same time, other recent studies have strengthened the controversial link between this increase and the “greenhouse effect.” Proponents of the greenhouse effect claim that the increase was (15) caused by elevated levels in the atmosphere of certain gases that prevent heat from radiating back into space.

Early models charting the greenhouse effect were somewhat inconsistent with observed data; they estimated that the increase in the earth’s atmospheric (20) temperature over recent decades should have been higher than the increase observed in actuality, which led opponents to question the validity of the greenhouse theory. But new methods have enabled scientists to gauge the effect of greenhouse gases more accurately (25) by taking into account an important factor that earlier studies overlooked: airborne sulfates. Sulfates from natural sources such as volcanoes as well as from human technological sources tend to counteract the heating effect of greenhouse gases by reflecting solar (30) energy back into space. Taking into account the varying levels of airborne sulfates indicated by the concentration of sulfates in successive ages of glacial ice, these scientists have calculated theoretical temperatures for recent decades that are consistent (35) with observed temperatures.

Another question for proponents of the greenhouse theory comes from scientists who have attempted to tie changes in the earth’s atmospheric temperature to variations in solar energy. From observations of cycles (40) in several types of solar phenomena, these scientists have developed models that chart variations in the sun’s heating effects, and the models do show a strong decade-by-decade correspondence between solar activity and atmospheric temperature fluctuations. But (45) the models cannot account for the entirety of the recent rise in atmospheric temperature. While researchers have found that the average annual atmospheric temperature fluctuates from one year to the next, its temperature over the long term has been relatively (50) stable—deviations from the long-term average atmospheric temperature have inevitably reverted to this average, or equilibrium, temperature. But the current rise in temperature surpasses the most extreme fluctuations in temperature consistent with the models (55) based on variations in solar energy. In light of all this, it seems reasonable to conclude that changes in the earth’s atmosphere have raised its equilibrium temperature, and that greenhouse gases represent the best explanation of that shift.

Evidence that the earth’s atmosphere has warmed has become quite compelling, in part because it has been reinforced recently by the development of accurate profiles of average annual temperatures (5) throughout the last 1,000 years. These data, inferred from studies of geological patterns and samples of ice deposits, tree rings, and coral growth layers, indicate that the recent increase in average temperature—a rise of about one half of a degree Celsius over the last (10) 100 years—is unprecedented in the previous 1,000 years. At the same time, other recent studies have strengthened the controversial link between this increase and the “greenhouse effect.” Proponents of the greenhouse effect claim that the increase was (15) caused by elevated levels in the atmosphere of certain gases that prevent heat from radiating back into space.

Early models charting the greenhouse effect were somewhat inconsistent with observed data; they estimated that the increase in the earth’s atmospheric (20) temperature over recent decades should have been higher than the increase observed in actuality, which led opponents to question the validity of the greenhouse theory. But new methods have enabled scientists to gauge the effect of greenhouse gases more accurately (25) by taking into account an important factor that earlier studies overlooked: airborne sulfates. Sulfates from natural sources such as volcanoes as well as from human technological sources tend to counteract the heating effect of greenhouse gases by reflecting solar (30) energy back into space. Taking into account the varying levels of airborne sulfates indicated by the concentration of sulfates in successive ages of glacial ice, these scientists have calculated theoretical temperatures for recent decades that are consistent (35) with observed temperatures.

Another question for proponents of the greenhouse theory comes from scientists who have attempted to tie changes in the earth’s atmospheric temperature to variations in solar energy. From observations of cycles (40) in several types of solar phenomena, these scientists have developed models that chart variations in the sun’s heating effects, and the models do show a strong decade-by-decade correspondence between solar activity and atmospheric temperature fluctuations. But (45) the models cannot account for the entirety of the recent rise in atmospheric temperature. While researchers have found that the average annual atmospheric temperature fluctuates from one year to the next, its temperature over the long term has been relatively (50) stable—deviations from the long-term average atmospheric temperature have inevitably reverted to this average, or equilibrium, temperature. But the current rise in temperature surpasses the most extreme fluctuations in temperature consistent with the models (55) based on variations in solar energy. In light of all this, it seems reasonable to conclude that changes in the earth’s atmosphere have raised its equilibrium temperature, and that greenhouse gases represent the best explanation of that shift.

Evidence that the earth’s atmosphere has warmed has become quite compelling, in part because it has been reinforced recently by the development of accurate profiles of average annual temperatures (5) throughout the last 1,000 years. These data, inferred from studies of geological patterns and samples of ice deposits, tree rings, and coral growth layers, indicate that the recent increase in average temperature—a rise of about one half of a degree Celsius over the last (10) 100 years—is unprecedented in the previous 1,000 years. At the same time, other recent studies have strengthened the controversial link between this increase and the “greenhouse effect.” Proponents of the greenhouse effect claim that the increase was (15) caused by elevated levels in the atmosphere of certain gases that prevent heat from radiating back into space.

Early models charting the greenhouse effect were somewhat inconsistent with observed data; they estimated that the increase in the earth’s atmospheric (20) temperature over recent decades should have been higher than the increase observed in actuality, which led opponents to question the validity of the greenhouse theory. But new methods have enabled scientists to gauge the effect of greenhouse gases more accurately (25) by taking into account an important factor that earlier studies overlooked: airborne sulfates. Sulfates from natural sources such as volcanoes as well as from human technological sources tend to counteract the heating effect of greenhouse gases by reflecting solar (30) energy back into space. Taking into account the varying levels of airborne sulfates indicated by the concentration of sulfates in successive ages of glacial ice, these scientists have calculated theoretical temperatures for recent decades that are consistent (35) with observed temperatures.

Another question for proponents of the greenhouse theory comes from scientists who have attempted to tie changes in the earth’s atmospheric temperature to variations in solar energy. From observations of cycles (40) in several types of solar phenomena, these scientists have developed models that chart variations in the sun’s heating effects, and the models do show a strong decade-by-decade correspondence between solar activity and atmospheric temperature fluctuations. But (45) the models cannot account for the entirety of the recent rise in atmospheric temperature. While researchers have found that the average annual atmospheric temperature fluctuates from one year to the next, its temperature over the long term has been relatively (50) stable—deviations from the long-term average atmospheric temperature have inevitably reverted to this average, or equilibrium, temperature. But the current rise in temperature surpasses the most extreme fluctuations in temperature consistent with the models (55) based on variations in solar energy. In light of all this, it seems reasonable to conclude that changes in the earth’s atmosphere have raised its equilibrium temperature, and that greenhouse gases represent the best explanation of that shift.

Evidence that the earth’s atmosphere has warmed has become quite compelling, in part because it has been reinforced recently by the development of accurate profiles of average annual temperatures (5) throughout the last 1,000 years. These data, inferred from studies of geological patterns and samples of ice deposits, tree rings, and coral growth layers, indicate that the recent increase in average temperature—a rise of about one half of a degree Celsius over the last (10) 100 years—is unprecedented in the previous 1,000 years. At the same time, other recent studies have strengthened the controversial link between this increase and the “greenhouse effect.” Proponents of the greenhouse effect claim that the increase was (15) caused by elevated levels in the atmosphere of certain gases that prevent heat from radiating back into space.

Early models charting the greenhouse effect were somewhat inconsistent with observed data; they estimated that the increase in the earth’s atmospheric (20) temperature over recent decades should have been higher than the increase observed in actuality, which led opponents to question the validity of the greenhouse theory. But new methods have enabled scientists to gauge the effect of greenhouse gases more accurately (25) by taking into account an important factor that earlier studies overlooked: airborne sulfates. Sulfates from natural sources such as volcanoes as well as from human technological sources tend to counteract the heating effect of greenhouse gases by reflecting solar (30) energy back into space. Taking into account the varying levels of airborne sulfates indicated by the concentration of sulfates in successive ages of glacial ice, these scientists have calculated theoretical temperatures for recent decades that are consistent (35) with observed temperatures.

Another question for proponents of the greenhouse theory comes from scientists who have attempted to tie changes in the earth’s atmospheric temperature to variations in solar energy. From observations of cycles (40) in several types of solar phenomena, these scientists have developed models that chart variations in the sun’s heating effects, and the models do show a strong decade-by-decade correspondence between solar activity and atmospheric temperature fluctuations. But (45) the models cannot account for the entirety of the recent rise in atmospheric temperature. While researchers have found that the average annual atmospheric temperature fluctuates from one year to the next, its temperature over the long term has been relatively (50) stable—deviations from the long-term average atmospheric temperature have inevitably reverted to this average, or equilibrium, temperature. But the current rise in temperature surpasses the most extreme fluctuations in temperature consistent with the models (55) based on variations in solar energy. In light of all this, it seems reasonable to conclude that changes in the earth’s atmosphere have raised its equilibrium temperature, and that greenhouse gases represent the best explanation of that shift.

When interviewing witnesses to a crime, police interviewers seek to maximize the amount of information that a cooperating eyewitness can give them so that they can generate leads to follow, confirm (5) or disconfirm alibis, aiid so forth. One method for eliciting information over and above what a cooperative witness might otherwise provide is the cognitive interview.

Developed by psychologists and adopted by (10) police forces around the world, the cognitive interview combines cognitive techniques known to improve recall, such as multiple retrieval attempts, with communication strategies developed by social psychologists, such as conversation-management skills and techniques for (15) building rapport between interviewer and interviewee. The general consensus is that this package has proven successful in increasing the number of details recalled by witnesses, with little impact on the number of incorrect details reported ther increasing nor (20) decreasing overall accuracy). However, a problem associated with the cognitive interview is that it is a complex procedure, requiring substantial training to learn and a long time to conduct. Because of this complexity, not all officers receive this training, and (25) even trained officers often deviate from the procedures specified in the cognitive interview training.

An alternative to the cognitive interview is hypnosis. Indeed, hypnotic investigative interviewing was a precursor to the cognitive interview. However, (30) even though the techniques involved are much less complex, the evidence suggests that overall accuracy, as determined by the proportion of correct to incorrect responses, is not generally improved with hypnosis; in fact, sometimes it may deteriorate. Hypnosis may also (35) give rise to a “false confidence” effect, whereby witnesses are more confident in their reports generally, including reports of incorrect information. There are other practical difficulties, most notably that not all witnesses are susceptible to hypnosis.

(40) For police interviewers, the ideal method for eliciting additional information from an eyewitness would be one that requires no special training for the interviewer, that can be applied to the entire population of potential witnesses, and that has a positive effect on (45) correct memory reports, with no corresponding increase in false details reported. Research suggests that such a method may in fact be available. Encouraging eyewitnesses to close their eyes during recall attempts is a technique that is common to both (50) hypnosis and the cognitive interview. Recent studies demonstrate that instructed eye-closure can benefit recall for both visual and auditory materials, for events witnessed on video, and for events witnessed through live interactions. These studies indicate an improvement (55) over hypnotic interviewing, with no problems of participant dropout because of lack of hypnotic susceptibility. More significantly, instructed eye-closure by itself appears to improve witness recall to a degree equivalent to that demonstrated by the cognitive (60) interview. And the benefits of eye-closure are achieved with no increase in errors, no specialist training, and no greater complexity of interviewing technique.

When interviewing witnesses to a crime, police interviewers seek to maximize the amount of information that a cooperating eyewitness can give them so that they can generate leads to follow, confirm (5) or disconfirm alibis, aiid so forth. One method for eliciting information over and above what a cooperative witness might otherwise provide is the cognitive interview.

Developed by psychologists and adopted by (10) police forces around the world, the cognitive interview combines cognitive techniques known to improve recall, such as multiple retrieval attempts, with communication strategies developed by social psychologists, such as conversation-management skills and techniques for (15) building rapport between interviewer and interviewee. The general consensus is that this package has proven successful in increasing the number of details recalled by witnesses, with little impact on the number of incorrect details reported ther increasing nor (20) decreasing overall accuracy). However, a problem associated with the cognitive interview is that it is a complex procedure, requiring substantial training to learn and a long time to conduct. Because of this complexity, not all officers receive this training, and (25) even trained officers often deviate from the procedures specified in the cognitive interview training.

An alternative to the cognitive interview is hypnosis. Indeed, hypnotic investigative interviewing was a precursor to the cognitive interview. However, (30) even though the techniques involved are much less complex, the evidence suggests that overall accuracy, as determined by the proportion of correct to incorrect responses, is not generally improved with hypnosis; in fact, sometimes it may deteriorate. Hypnosis may also (35) give rise to a “false confidence” effect, whereby witnesses are more confident in their reports generally, including reports of incorrect information. There are other practical difficulties, most notably that not all witnesses are susceptible to hypnosis.

(40) For police interviewers, the ideal method for eliciting additional information from an eyewitness would be one that requires no special training for the interviewer, that can be applied to the entire population of potential witnesses, and that has a positive effect on (45) correct memory reports, with no corresponding increase in false details reported. Research suggests that such a method may in fact be available. Encouraging eyewitnesses to close their eyes during recall attempts is a technique that is common to both (50) hypnosis and the cognitive interview. Recent studies demonstrate that instructed eye-closure can benefit recall for both visual and auditory materials, for events witnessed on video, and for events witnessed through live interactions. These studies indicate an improvement (55) over hypnotic interviewing, with no problems of participant dropout because of lack of hypnotic susceptibility. More significantly, instructed eye-closure by itself appears to improve witness recall to a degree equivalent to that demonstrated by the cognitive (60) interview. And the benefits of eye-closure are achieved with no increase in errors, no specialist training, and no greater complexity of interviewing technique.

When interviewing witnesses to a crime, police interviewers seek to maximize the amount of information that a cooperating eyewitness can give them so that they can generate leads to follow, confirm (5) or disconfirm alibis, aiid so forth. One method for eliciting information over and above what a cooperative witness might otherwise provide is the cognitive interview.

Developed by psychologists and adopted by (10) police forces around the world, the cognitive interview combines cognitive techniques known to improve recall, such as multiple retrieval attempts, with communication strategies developed by social psychologists, such as conversation-management skills and techniques for (15) building rapport between interviewer and interviewee. The general consensus is that this package has proven successful in increasing the number of details recalled by witnesses, with little impact on the number of incorrect details reported ther increasing nor (20) decreasing overall accuracy). However, a problem associated with the cognitive interview is that it is a complex procedure, requiring substantial training to learn and a long time to conduct. Because of this complexity, not all officers receive this training, and (25) even trained officers often deviate from the procedures specified in the cognitive interview training.

An alternative to the cognitive interview is hypnosis. Indeed, hypnotic investigative interviewing was a precursor to the cognitive interview. However, (30) even though the techniques involved are much less complex, the evidence suggests that overall accuracy, as determined by the proportion of correct to incorrect responses, is not generally improved with hypnosis; in fact, sometimes it may deteriorate. Hypnosis may also (35) give rise to a “false confidence” effect, whereby witnesses are more confident in their reports generally, including reports of incorrect information. There are other practical difficulties, most notably that not all witnesses are susceptible to hypnosis.

(40) For police interviewers, the ideal method for eliciting additional information from an eyewitness would be one that requires no special training for the interviewer, that can be applied to the entire population of potential witnesses, and that has a positive effect on (45) correct memory reports, with no corresponding increase in false details reported. Research suggests that such a method may in fact be available. Encouraging eyewitnesses to close their eyes during recall attempts is a technique that is common to both (50) hypnosis and the cognitive interview. Recent studies demonstrate that instructed eye-closure can benefit recall for both visual and auditory materials, for events witnessed on video, and for events witnessed through live interactions. These studies indicate an improvement (55) over hypnotic interviewing, with no problems of participant dropout because of lack of hypnotic susceptibility. More significantly, instructed eye-closure by itself appears to improve witness recall to a degree equivalent to that demonstrated by the cognitive (60) interview. And the benefits of eye-closure are achieved with no increase in errors, no specialist training, and no greater complexity of interviewing technique.

When interviewing witnesses to a crime, police interviewers seek to maximize the amount of information that a cooperating eyewitness can give them so that they can generate leads to follow, confirm (5) or disconfirm alibis, aiid so forth. One method for eliciting information over and above what a cooperative witness might otherwise provide is the cognitive interview.

Developed by psychologists and adopted by (10) police forces around the world, the cognitive interview combines cognitive techniques known to improve recall, such as multiple retrieval attempts, with communication strategies developed by social psychologists, such as conversation-management skills and techniques for (15) building rapport between interviewer and interviewee. The general consensus is that this package has proven successful in increasing the number of details recalled by witnesses, with little impact on the number of incorrect details reported ther increasing nor (20) decreasing overall accuracy). However, a problem associated with the cognitive interview is that it is a complex procedure, requiring substantial training to learn and a long time to conduct. Because of this complexity, not all officers receive this training, and (25) even trained officers often deviate from the procedures specified in the cognitive interview training.

An alternative to the cognitive interview is hypnosis. Indeed, hypnotic investigative interviewing was a precursor to the cognitive interview. However, (30) even though the techniques involved are much less complex, the evidence suggests that overall accuracy, as determined by the proportion of correct to incorrect responses, is not generally improved with hypnosis; in fact, sometimes it may deteriorate. Hypnosis may also (35) give rise to a “false confidence” effect, whereby witnesses are more confident in their reports generally, including reports of incorrect information. There are other practical difficulties, most notably that not all witnesses are susceptible to hypnosis.

(40) For police interviewers, the ideal method for eliciting additional information from an eyewitness would be one that requires no special training for the interviewer, that can be applied to the entire population of potential witnesses, and that has a positive effect on (45) correct memory reports, with no corresponding increase in false details reported. Research suggests that such a method may in fact be available. Encouraging eyewitnesses to close their eyes during recall attempts is a technique that is common to both (50) hypnosis and the cognitive interview. Recent studies demonstrate that instructed eye-closure can benefit recall for both visual and auditory materials, for events witnessed on video, and for events witnessed through live interactions. These studies indicate an improvement (55) over hypnotic interviewing, with no problems of participant dropout because of lack of hypnotic susceptibility. More significantly, instructed eye-closure by itself appears to improve witness recall to a degree equivalent to that demonstrated by the cognitive (60) interview. And the benefits of eye-closure are achieved with no increase in errors, no specialist training, and no greater complexity of interviewing technique.

When interviewing witnesses to a crime, police interviewers seek to maximize the amount of information that a cooperating eyewitness can give them so that they can generate leads to follow, confirm (5) or disconfirm alibis, aiid so forth. One method for eliciting information over and above what a cooperative witness might otherwise provide is the cognitive interview.

Developed by psychologists and adopted by (10) police forces around the world, the cognitive interview combines cognitive techniques known to improve recall, such as multiple retrieval attempts, with communication strategies developed by social psychologists, such as conversation-management skills and techniques for (15) building rapport between interviewer and interviewee. The general consensus is that this package has proven successful in increasing the number of details recalled by witnesses, with little impact on the number of incorrect details reported ther increasing nor (20) decreasing overall accuracy). However, a problem associated with the cognitive interview is that it is a complex procedure, requiring substantial training to learn and a long time to conduct. Because of this complexity, not all officers receive this training, and (25) even trained officers often deviate from the procedures specified in the cognitive interview training.

An alternative to the cognitive interview is hypnosis. Indeed, hypnotic investigative interviewing was a precursor to the cognitive interview. However, (30) even though the techniques involved are much less complex, the evidence suggests that overall accuracy, as determined by the proportion of correct to incorrect responses, is not generally improved with hypnosis; in fact, sometimes it may deteriorate. Hypnosis may also (35) give rise to a “false confidence” effect, whereby witnesses are more confident in their reports generally, including reports of incorrect information. There are other practical difficulties, most notably that not all witnesses are susceptible to hypnosis.

(40) For police interviewers, the ideal method for eliciting additional information from an eyewitness would be one that requires no special training for the interviewer, that can be applied to the entire population of potential witnesses, and that has a positive effect on (45) correct memory reports, with no corresponding increase in false details reported. Research suggests that such a method may in fact be available. Encouraging eyewitnesses to close their eyes during recall attempts is a technique that is common to both (50) hypnosis and the cognitive interview. Recent studies demonstrate that instructed eye-closure can benefit recall for both visual and auditory materials, for events witnessed on video, and for events witnessed through live interactions. These studies indicate an improvement (55) over hypnotic interviewing, with no problems of participant dropout because of lack of hypnotic susceptibility. More significantly, instructed eye-closure by itself appears to improve witness recall to a degree equivalent to that demonstrated by the cognitive (60) interview. And the benefits of eye-closure are achieved with no increase in errors, no specialist training, and no greater complexity of interviewing technique.

When interviewing witnesses to a crime, police interviewers seek to maximize the amount of information that a cooperating eyewitness can give them so that they can generate leads to follow, confirm (5) or disconfirm alibis, aiid so forth. One method for eliciting information over and above what a cooperative witness might otherwise provide is the cognitive interview.

Developed by psychologists and adopted by (10) police forces around the world, the cognitive interview combines cognitive techniques known to improve recall, such as multiple retrieval attempts, with communication strategies developed by social psychologists, such as conversation-management skills and techniques for (15) building rapport between interviewer and interviewee. The general consensus is that this package has proven successful in increasing the number of details recalled by witnesses, with little impact on the number of incorrect details reported ther increasing nor (20) decreasing overall accuracy). However, a problem associated with the cognitive interview is that it is a complex procedure, requiring substantial training to learn and a long time to conduct. Because of this complexity, not all officers receive this training, and (25) even trained officers often deviate from the procedures specified in the cognitive interview training.

An alternative to the cognitive interview is hypnosis. Indeed, hypnotic investigative interviewing was a precursor to the cognitive interview. However, (30) even though the techniques involved are much less complex, the evidence suggests that overall accuracy, as determined by the proportion of correct to incorrect responses, is not generally improved with hypnosis; in fact, sometimes it may deteriorate. Hypnosis may also (35) give rise to a “false confidence” effect, whereby witnesses are more confident in their reports generally, including reports of incorrect information. There are other practical difficulties, most notably that not all witnesses are susceptible to hypnosis.

(40) For police interviewers, the ideal method for eliciting additional information from an eyewitness would be one that requires no special training for the interviewer, that can be applied to the entire population of potential witnesses, and that has a positive effect on (45) correct memory reports, with no corresponding increase in false details reported. Research suggests that such a method may in fact be available. Encouraging eyewitnesses to close their eyes during recall attempts is a technique that is common to both (50) hypnosis and the cognitive interview. Recent studies demonstrate that instructed eye-closure can benefit recall for both visual and auditory materials, for events witnessed on video, and for events witnessed through live interactions. These studies indicate an improvement (55) over hypnotic interviewing, with no problems of participant dropout because of lack of hypnotic susceptibility. More significantly, instructed eye-closure by itself appears to improve witness recall to a degree equivalent to that demonstrated by the cognitive (60) interview. And the benefits of eye-closure are achieved with no increase in errors, no specialist training, and no greater complexity of interviewing technique.

When interviewing witnesses to a crime, police interviewers seek to maximize the amount of information that a cooperating eyewitness can give them so that they can generate leads to follow, confirm (5) or disconfirm alibis, aiid so forth. One method for eliciting information over and above what a cooperative witness might otherwise provide is the cognitive interview.

Developed by psychologists and adopted by (10) police forces around the world, the cognitive interview combines cognitive techniques known to improve recall, such as multiple retrieval attempts, with communication strategies developed by social psychologists, such as conversation-management skills and techniques for (15) building rapport between interviewer and interviewee. The general consensus is that this package has proven successful in increasing the number of details recalled by witnesses, with little impact on the number of incorrect details reported ther increasing nor (20) decreasing overall accuracy). However, a problem associated with the cognitive interview is that it is a complex procedure, requiring substantial training to learn and a long time to conduct. Because of this complexity, not all officers receive this training, and (25) even trained officers often deviate from the procedures specified in the cognitive interview training.

An alternative to the cognitive interview is hypnosis. Indeed, hypnotic investigative interviewing was a precursor to the cognitive interview. However, (30) even though the techniques involved are much less complex, the evidence suggests that overall accuracy, as determined by the proportion of correct to incorrect responses, is not generally improved with hypnosis; in fact, sometimes it may deteriorate. Hypnosis may also (35) give rise to a “false confidence” effect, whereby witnesses are more confident in their reports generally, including reports of incorrect information. There are other practical difficulties, most notably that not all witnesses are susceptible to hypnosis.

(40) For police interviewers, the ideal method for eliciting additional information from an eyewitness would be one that requires no special training for the interviewer, that can be applied to the entire population of potential witnesses, and that has a positive effect on (45) correct memory reports, with no corresponding increase in false details reported. Research suggests that such a method may in fact be available. Encouraging eyewitnesses to close their eyes during recall attempts is a technique that is common to both (50) hypnosis and the cognitive interview. Recent studies demonstrate that instructed eye-closure can benefit recall for both visual and auditory materials, for events witnessed on video, and for events witnessed through live interactions. These studies indicate an improvement (55) over hypnotic interviewing, with no problems of participant dropout because of lack of hypnotic susceptibility. More significantly, instructed eye-closure by itself appears to improve witness recall to a degree equivalent to that demonstrated by the cognitive (60) interview. And the benefits of eye-closure are achieved with no increase in errors, no specialist training, and no greater complexity of interviewing technique.

Passage A

In a 1978 lecture titled “The Detective Story,” Jorge Luis Borges observes that, “The detective novel has created a special type of reader,” and adds, “If Poe (5) created the detective story, he subsequently created the reader of detective fiction.” For Borges, this “special type of reader” confronts literature with such “incredulity and suspicions” that he or she might read any narrative as a detective story. Borges’s interest in this particular (10) genre, of course, inspired a good deal of his own fiction, but his account also draws our attention to an insight into the general nature of literature.

Literature, according to Borges, is “an aesthetic event” that “requires the conjunction of reader and (15) text,” and what the detective story highlights, he suggests, is the way in which the reader forms the conditions of possibility for this “aesthetic event.” Borges imagines that the participation of the reader is not extrinsic to but instead essential to the literary text. (20) Thus, what unites works belonging to the same genre is the way those works are read, rather than, say, a set of formal elements found within the works.

Passage B

One can, if one wants, define genres of fiction as (25) sets of texts sharing certain thematic similarities, but the taxonomic difficulties of such an approach are notorious. The problem of “borderline cases”— especially in science fiction—arises so often that the definition fails to demarcate genres entirely. A more (30) fruitful way to characterize the distinction between genres is to view it as a distinction between reading protocols: between ways of reading, responding to sentences, and making various sentences and various texts make sense. We are free to read any text by any (35) reading protocol we wish. But the texts most central to a genre are those texts that were clearly written to exploit a particular protocol—texts that yield a particularly rich reading experience when read according to one protocol rather than another.

(40) Our major critical effort must therefore be an exploration of the specific workings of many of the individual rhetorical configurations that contour, exploit, or even create a specific reading protocol. Here—to give an example outside of fiction—is a (45) general description of one aspect of the reading protocols associated with poetry: with poetry, we tend to pay more attention to the sound of the words than we do with prose. Therefore we look for rhetorical figures that exploit, among other things, the phonic (50) aspects of the words making up the text. With science fiction, much of the significance of the story will manifest itself in the alternative workings of the world in which the characters maneuver. Therefore we will pay particular attention to the rhetorical figures by (55) which differences between our world and the world of the story are suggested.

Passage A

In a 1978 lecture titled “The Detective Story,” Jorge Luis Borges observes that, “The detective novel has created a special type of reader,” and adds, “If Poe (5) created the detective story, he subsequently created the reader of detective fiction.” For Borges, this “special type of reader” confronts literature with such “incredulity and suspicions” that he or she might read any narrative as a detective story. Borges’s interest in this particular (10) genre, of course, inspired a good deal of his own fiction, but his account also draws our attention to an insight into the general nature of literature.

Literature, according to Borges, is “an aesthetic event” that “requires the conjunction of reader and (15) text,” and what the detective story highlights, he suggests, is the way in which the reader forms the conditions of possibility for this “aesthetic event.” Borges imagines that the participation of the reader is not extrinsic to but instead essential to the literary text. (20) Thus, what unites works belonging to the same genre is the way those works are read, rather than, say, a set of formal elements found within the works.

Passage B

One can, if one wants, define genres of fiction as (25) sets of texts sharing certain thematic similarities, but the taxonomic difficulties of such an approach are notorious. The problem of “borderline cases”— especially in science fiction—arises so often that the definition fails to demarcate genres entirely. A more (30) fruitful way to characterize the distinction between genres is to view it as a distinction between reading protocols: between ways of reading, responding to sentences, and making various sentences and various texts make sense. We are free to read any text by any (35) reading protocol we wish. But the texts most central to a genre are those texts that were clearly written to exploit a particular protocol—texts that yield a particularly rich reading experience when read according to one protocol rather than another.

(40) Our major critical effort must therefore be an exploration of the specific workings of many of the individual rhetorical configurations that contour, exploit, or even create a specific reading protocol. Here—to give an example outside of fiction—is a (45) general description of one aspect of the reading protocols associated with poetry: with poetry, we tend to pay more attention to the sound of the words than we do with prose. Therefore we look for rhetorical figures that exploit, among other things, the phonic (50) aspects of the words making up the text. With science fiction, much of the significance of the story will manifest itself in the alternative workings of the world in which the characters maneuver. Therefore we will pay particular attention to the rhetorical figures by (55) which differences between our world and the world of the story are suggested.

Passage A

In a 1978 lecture titled “The Detective Story,” Jorge Luis Borges observes that, “The detective novel has created a special type of reader,” and adds, “If Poe (5) created the detective story, he subsequently created the reader of detective fiction.” For Borges, this “special type of reader” confronts literature with such “incredulity and suspicions” that he or she might read any narrative as a detective story. Borges’s interest in this particular (10) genre, of course, inspired a good deal of his own fiction, but his account also draws our attention to an insight into the general nature of literature.

Literature, according to Borges, is “an aesthetic event” that “requires the conjunction of reader and (15) text,” and what the detective story highlights, he suggests, is the way in which the reader forms the conditions of possibility for this “aesthetic event.” Borges imagines that the participation of the reader is not extrinsic to but instead essential to the literary text. (20) Thus, what unites works belonging to the same genre is the way those works are read, rather than, say, a set of formal elements found within the works.

Passage B

One can, if one wants, define genres of fiction as (25) sets of texts sharing certain thematic similarities, but the taxonomic difficulties of such an approach are notorious. The problem of “borderline cases”— especially in science fiction—arises so often that the definition fails to demarcate genres entirely. A more (30) fruitful way to characterize the distinction between genres is to view it as a distinction between reading protocols: between ways of reading, responding to sentences, and making various sentences and various texts make sense. We are free to read any text by any (35) reading protocol we wish. But the texts most central to a genre are those texts that were clearly written to exploit a particular protocol—texts that yield a particularly rich reading experience when read according to one protocol rather than another.

(40) Our major critical effort must therefore be an exploration of the specific workings of many of the individual rhetorical configurations that contour, exploit, or even create a specific reading protocol. Here—to give an example outside of fiction—is a (45) general description of one aspect of the reading protocols associated with poetry: with poetry, we tend to pay more attention to the sound of the words than we do with prose. Therefore we look for rhetorical figures that exploit, among other things, the phonic (50) aspects of the words making up the text. With science fiction, much of the significance of the story will manifest itself in the alternative workings of the world in which the characters maneuver. Therefore we will pay particular attention to the rhetorical figures by (55) which differences between our world and the world of the story are suggested.

Passage A

In a 1978 lecture titled “The Detective Story,” Jorge Luis Borges observes that, “The detective novel has created a special type of reader,” and adds, “If Poe (5) created the detective story, he subsequently created the reader of detective fiction.” For Borges, this “special type of reader” confronts literature with such “incredulity and suspicions” that he or she might read any narrative as a detective story. Borges’s interest in this particular (10) genre, of course, inspired a good deal of his own fiction, but his account also draws our attention to an insight into the general nature of literature.

Literature, according to Borges, is “an aesthetic event” that “requires the conjunction of reader and (15) text,” and what the detective story highlights, he suggests, is the way in which the reader forms the conditions of possibility for this “aesthetic event.” Borges imagines that the participation of the reader is not extrinsic to but instead essential to the literary text. (20) Thus, what unites works belonging to the same genre is the way those works are read, rather than, say, a set of formal elements found within the works.

Passage B

One can, if one wants, define genres of fiction as (25) sets of texts sharing certain thematic similarities, but the taxonomic difficulties of such an approach are notorious. The problem of “borderline cases”— especially in science fiction—arises so often that the definition fails to demarcate genres entirely. A more (30) fruitful way to characterize the distinction between genres is to view it as a distinction between reading protocols: between ways of reading, responding to sentences, and making various sentences and various texts make sense. We are free to read any text by any (35) reading protocol we wish. But the texts most central to a genre are those texts that were clearly written to exploit a particular protocol—texts that yield a particularly rich reading experience when read according to one protocol rather than another.

(40) Our major critical effort must therefore be an exploration of the specific workings of many of the individual rhetorical configurations that contour, exploit, or even create a specific reading protocol. Here—to give an example outside of fiction—is a (45) general description of one aspect of the reading protocols associated with poetry: with poetry, we tend to pay more attention to the sound of the words than we do with prose. Therefore we look for rhetorical figures that exploit, among other things, the phonic (50) aspects of the words making up the text. With science fiction, much of the significance of the story will manifest itself in the alternative workings of the world in which the characters maneuver. Therefore we will pay particular attention to the rhetorical figures by (55) which differences between our world and the world of the story are suggested.

Passage A

In a 1978 lecture titled “The Detective Story,” Jorge Luis Borges observes that, “The detective novel has created a special type of reader,” and adds, “If Poe (5) created the detective story, he subsequently created the reader of detective fiction.” For Borges, this “special type of reader” confronts literature with such “incredulity and suspicions” that he or she might read any narrative as a detective story. Borges’s interest in this particular (10) genre, of course, inspired a good deal of his own fiction, but his account also draws our attention to an insight into the general nature of literature.

Literature, according to Borges, is “an aesthetic event” that “requires the conjunction of reader and (15) text,” and what the detective story highlights, he suggests, is the way in which the reader forms the conditions of possibility for this “aesthetic event.” Borges imagines that the participation of the reader is not extrinsic to but instead essential to the literary text. (20) Thus, what unites works belonging to the same genre is the way those works are read, rather than, say, a set of formal elements found within the works.

Passage B

One can, if one wants, define genres of fiction as (25) sets of texts sharing certain thematic similarities, but the taxonomic difficulties of such an approach are notorious. The problem of “borderline cases”— especially in science fiction—arises so often that the definition fails to demarcate genres entirely. A more (30) fruitful way to characterize the distinction between genres is to view it as a distinction between reading protocols: between ways of reading, responding to sentences, and making various sentences and various texts make sense. We are free to read any text by any (35) reading protocol we wish. But the texts most central to a genre are those texts that were clearly written to exploit a particular protocol—texts that yield a particularly rich reading experience when read according to one protocol rather than another.

(40) Our major critical effort must therefore be an exploration of the specific workings of many of the individual rhetorical configurations that contour, exploit, or even create a specific reading protocol. Here—to give an example outside of fiction—is a (45) general description of one aspect of the reading protocols associated with poetry: with poetry, we tend to pay more attention to the sound of the words than we do with prose. Therefore we look for rhetorical figures that exploit, among other things, the phonic (50) aspects of the words making up the text. With science fiction, much of the significance of the story will manifest itself in the alternative workings of the world in which the characters maneuver. Therefore we will pay particular attention to the rhetorical figures by (55) which differences between our world and the world of the story are suggested.

Passage A

In a 1978 lecture titled “The Detective Story,” Jorge Luis Borges observes that, “The detective novel has created a special type of reader,” and adds, “If Poe (5) created the detective story, he subsequently created the reader of detective fiction.” For Borges, this “special type of reader” confronts literature with such “incredulity and suspicions” that he or she might read any narrative as a detective story. Borges’s interest in this particular (10) genre, of course, inspired a good deal of his own fiction, but his account also draws our attention to an insight into the general nature of literature.

Literature, according to Borges, is “an aesthetic event” that “requires the conjunction of reader and (15) text,” and what the detective story highlights, he suggests, is the way in which the reader forms the conditions of possibility for this “aesthetic event.” Borges imagines that the participation of the reader is not extrinsic to but instead essential to the literary text. (20) Thus, what unites works belonging to the same genre is the way those works are read, rather than, say, a set of formal elements found within the works.

Passage B

One can, if one wants, define genres of fiction as (25) sets of texts sharing certain thematic similarities, but the taxonomic difficulties of such an approach are notorious. The problem of “borderline cases”— especially in science fiction—arises so often that the definition fails to demarcate genres entirely. A more (30) fruitful way to characterize the distinction between genres is to view it as a distinction between reading protocols: between ways of reading, responding to sentences, and making various sentences and various texts make sense. We are free to read any text by any (35) reading protocol we wish. But the texts most central to a genre are those texts that were clearly written to exploit a particular protocol—texts that yield a particularly rich reading experience when read according to one protocol rather than another.

(40) Our major critical effort must therefore be an exploration of the specific workings of many of the individual rhetorical configurations that contour, exploit, or even create a specific reading protocol. Here—to give an example outside of fiction—is a (45) general description of one aspect of the reading protocols associated with poetry: with poetry, we tend to pay more attention to the sound of the words than we do with prose. Therefore we look for rhetorical figures that exploit, among other things, the phonic (50) aspects of the words making up the text. With science fiction, much of the significance of the story will manifest itself in the alternative workings of the world in which the characters maneuver. Therefore we will pay particular attention to the rhetorical figures by (55) which differences between our world and the world of the story are suggested.

Passage A

In a 1978 lecture titled “The Detective Story,” Jorge Luis Borges observes that, “The detective novel has created a special type of reader,” and adds, “If Poe (5) created the detective story, he subsequently created the reader of detective fiction.” For Borges, this “special type of reader” confronts literature with such “incredulity and suspicions” that he or she might read any narrative as a detective story. Borges’s interest in this particular (10) genre, of course, inspired a good deal of his own fiction, but his account also draws our attention to an insight into the general nature of literature.

Literature, according to Borges, is “an aesthetic event” that “requires the conjunction of reader and (15) text,” and what the detective story highlights, he suggests, is the way in which the reader forms the conditions of possibility for this “aesthetic event.” Borges imagines that the participation of the reader is not extrinsic to but instead essential to the literary text. (20) Thus, what unites works belonging to the same genre is the way those works are read, rather than, say, a set of formal elements found within the works.

Passage B

One can, if one wants, define genres of fiction as (25) sets of texts sharing certain thematic similarities, but the taxonomic difficulties of such an approach are notorious. The problem of “borderline cases”— especially in science fiction—arises so often that the definition fails to demarcate genres entirely. A more (30) fruitful way to characterize the distinction between genres is to view it as a distinction between reading protocols: between ways of reading, responding to sentences, and making various sentences and various texts make sense. We are free to read any text by any (35) reading protocol we wish. But the texts most central to a genre are those texts that were clearly written to exploit a particular protocol—texts that yield a particularly rich reading experience when read according to one protocol rather than another.

(40) Our major critical effort must therefore be an exploration of the specific workings of many of the individual rhetorical configurations that contour, exploit, or even create a specific reading protocol. Here—to give an example outside of fiction—is a (45) general description of one aspect of the reading protocols associated with poetry: with poetry, we tend to pay more attention to the sound of the words than we do with prose. Therefore we look for rhetorical figures that exploit, among other things, the phonic (50) aspects of the words making up the text. With science fiction, much of the significance of the story will manifest itself in the alternative workings of the world in which the characters maneuver. Therefore we will pay particular attention to the rhetorical figures by (55) which differences between our world and the world of the story are suggested.

It might reasonably have been expected that the adoption of cooking by early humans would not have led to any changes in human digestive anatomy. After all, cooking makes food easier to eat, which means (5) that no special adaptations are required to process cooked food. However, current evidence suggests that humans today are capable of living on raw food only under unusual circumstances, such as a relatively sedentary lifestyle in a well supported urban (10) environment. Important theoretical obstacles to living on raw food in the wild today include both the low digestibility of much raw plant food, and the toughness of much raw meat. These points suggest that humans are so evolutionarily constrained to eating foods that (15) are digestible and easily chewed that cooking is normally obligatory. Furthermore, the widespread assumption that cooking could not have had any impact on biological evolution because its practice is too recent appears to be wrong. (Various European (20) and Middle Eastern sites that go back more than 250,000 years contain extensive evidence of hominid use of fire and apparent “earth ovens.”) The implication is that the adoption of cooked food created opportunities for humans to use diets of high caloric density more (25) efficiently. Selection for such efficiency, we suggest, led to an inability to survive on raw-food diets in the wild.

Important questions therefore arise concerning what limits the ability of humans to utilize raw food. (30) The principal effect of cooking considered to date has been a reduction in tooth and jaw size over evolutionary time. Human tooth and jaw size show signs of decreasing approximately 100,000 years ago; we suggest that this was a consequence of eating cooked (35) food. Subsequent population variation in the extent and timing of dental reduction is broadly explicable by regional variation in the times when improvements in cooking technology were adopted. It is also possible that the earliest impact of cooking was the reduction (40) of tooth and jaw size that accompanied the evolution of Homo ergaster approximately 1.9 million years ago. If so, the decrease in tooth and jaw size that started around 100,000 years ago may prove to result from later modifications in cooking technique, such as the (45) adoption of boiling.

The evolution of soft parts of the digestive system is harder to reconstruct because they leave no fossil record. Human digestive anatomy differs from that of the other great apes in ways that have traditionally (50) been explained as adaptations to a high raw-meat diet. Differences include the smaller gut volume, longer small intestine, and smaller colon. All such features are essentially adaptations to a diet of relatively high caloric density, however, and may therefore be at least (55) as well explained by the adoption of cooking as by eating raw meat. Testing between the cooking and raw-meat models for understanding human digestive anatomy is therefore warranted.

It might reasonably have been expected that the adoption of cooking by early humans would not have led to any changes in human digestive anatomy. After all, cooking makes food easier to eat, which means (5) that no special adaptations are required to process cooked food. However, current evidence suggests that humans today are capable of living on raw food only under unusual circumstances, such as a relatively sedentary lifestyle in a well supported urban (10) environment. Important theoretical obstacles to living on raw food in the wild today include both the low digestibility of much raw plant food, and the toughness of much raw meat. These points suggest that humans are so evolutionarily constrained to eating foods that (15) are digestible and easily chewed that cooking is normally obligatory. Furthermore, the widespread assumption that cooking could not have had any impact on biological evolution because its practice is too recent appears to be wrong. (Various European (20) and Middle Eastern sites that go back more than 250,000 years contain extensive evidence of hominid use of fire and apparent “earth ovens.”) The implication is that the adoption of cooked food created opportunities for humans to use diets of high caloric density more (25) efficiently. Selection for such efficiency, we suggest, led to an inability to survive on raw-food diets in the wild.

Important questions therefore arise concerning what limits the ability of humans to utilize raw food. (30) The principal effect of cooking considered to date has been a reduction in tooth and jaw size over evolutionary time. Human tooth and jaw size show signs of decreasing approximately 100,000 years ago; we suggest that this was a consequence of eating cooked (35) food. Subsequent population variation in the extent and timing of dental reduction is broadly explicable by regional variation in the times when improvements in cooking technology were adopted. It is also possible that the earliest impact of cooking was the reduction (40) of tooth and jaw size that accompanied the evolution of Homo ergaster approximately 1.9 million years ago. If so, the decrease in tooth and jaw size that started around 100,000 years ago may prove to result from later modifications in cooking technique, such as the (45) adoption of boiling.

The evolution of soft parts of the digestive system is harder to reconstruct because they leave no fossil record. Human digestive anatomy differs from that of the other great apes in ways that have traditionally (50) been explained as adaptations to a high raw-meat diet. Differences include the smaller gut volume, longer small intestine, and smaller colon. All such features are essentially adaptations to a diet of relatively high caloric density, however, and may therefore be at least (55) as well explained by the adoption of cooking as by eating raw meat. Testing between the cooking and raw-meat models for understanding human digestive anatomy is therefore warranted.

It might reasonably have been expected that the adoption of cooking by early humans would not have led to any changes in human digestive anatomy. After all, cooking makes food easier to eat, which means (5) that no special adaptations are required to process cooked food. However, current evidence suggests that humans today are capable of living on raw food only under unusual circumstances, such as a relatively sedentary lifestyle in a well supported urban (10) environment. Important theoretical obstacles to living on raw food in the wild today include both the low digestibility of much raw plant food, and the toughness of much raw meat. These points suggest that humans are so evolutionarily constrained to eating foods that (15) are digestible and easily chewed that cooking is normally obligatory. Furthermore, the widespread assumption that cooking could not have had any impact on biological evolution because its practice is too recent appears to be wrong. (Various European (20) and Middle Eastern sites that go back more than 250,000 years contain extensive evidence of hominid use of fire and apparent “earth ovens.”) The implication is that the adoption of cooked food created opportunities for humans to use diets of high caloric density more (25) efficiently. Selection for such efficiency, we suggest, led to an inability to survive on raw-food diets in the wild.

Important questions therefore arise concerning what limits the ability of humans to utilize raw food. (30) The principal effect of cooking considered to date has been a reduction in tooth and jaw size over evolutionary time. Human tooth and jaw size show signs of decreasing approximately 100,000 years ago; we suggest that this was a consequence of eating cooked (35) food. Subsequent population variation in the extent and timing of dental reduction is broadly explicable by regional variation in the times when improvements in cooking technology were adopted. It is also possible that the earliest impact of cooking was the reduction (40) of tooth and jaw size that accompanied the evolution of Homo ergaster approximately 1.9 million years ago. If so, the decrease in tooth and jaw size that started around 100,000 years ago may prove to result from later modifications in cooking technique, such as the (45) adoption of boiling.

The evolution of soft parts of the digestive system is harder to reconstruct because they leave no fossil record. Human digestive anatomy differs from that of the other great apes in ways that have traditionally (50) been explained as adaptations to a high raw-meat diet. Differences include the smaller gut volume, longer small intestine, and smaller colon. All such features are essentially adaptations to a diet of relatively high caloric density, however, and may therefore be at least (55) as well explained by the adoption of cooking as by eating raw meat. Testing between the cooking and raw-meat models for understanding human digestive anatomy is therefore warranted.

It might reasonably have been expected that the adoption of cooking by early humans would not have led to any changes in human digestive anatomy. After all, cooking makes food easier to eat, which means (5) that no special adaptations are required to process cooked food. However, current evidence suggests that humans today are capable of living on raw food only under unusual circumstances, such as a relatively sedentary lifestyle in a well supported urban (10) environment. Important theoretical obstacles to living on raw food in the wild today include both the low digestibility of much raw plant food, and the toughness of much raw meat. These points suggest that humans are so evolutionarily constrained to eating foods that (15) are digestible and easily chewed that cooking is normally obligatory. Furthermore, the widespread assumption that cooking could not have had any impact on biological evolution because its practice is too recent appears to be wrong. (Various European (20) and Middle Eastern sites that go back more than 250,000 years contain extensive evidence of hominid use of fire and apparent “earth ovens.”) The implication is that the adoption of cooked food created opportunities for humans to use diets of high caloric density more (25) efficiently. Selection for such efficiency, we suggest, led to an inability to survive on raw-food diets in the wild.

Important questions therefore arise concerning what limits the ability of humans to utilize raw food. (30) The principal effect of cooking considered to date has been a reduction in tooth and jaw size over evolutionary time. Human tooth and jaw size show signs of decreasing approximately 100,000 years ago; we suggest that this was a consequence of eating cooked (35) food. Subsequent population variation in the extent and timing of dental reduction is broadly explicable by regional variation in the times when improvements in cooking technology were adopted. It is also possible that the earliest impact of cooking was the reduction (40) of tooth and jaw size that accompanied the evolution of Homo ergaster approximately 1.9 million years ago. If so, the decrease in tooth and jaw size that started around 100,000 years ago may prove to result from later modifications in cooking technique, such as the (45) adoption of boiling.

The evolution of soft parts of the digestive system is harder to reconstruct because they leave no fossil record. Human digestive anatomy differs from that of the other great apes in ways that have traditionally (50) been explained as adaptations to a high raw-meat diet. Differences include the smaller gut volume, longer small intestine, and smaller colon. All such features are essentially adaptations to a diet of relatively high caloric density, however, and may therefore be at least (55) as well explained by the adoption of cooking as by eating raw meat. Testing between the cooking and raw-meat models for understanding human digestive anatomy is therefore warranted.

It might reasonably have been expected that the adoption of cooking by early humans would not have led to any changes in human digestive anatomy. After all, cooking makes food easier to eat, which means (5) that no special adaptations are required to process cooked food. However, current evidence suggests that humans today are capable of living on raw food only under unusual circumstances, such as a relatively sedentary lifestyle in a well supported urban (10) environment. Important theoretical obstacles to living on raw food in the wild today include both the low digestibility of much raw plant food, and the toughness of much raw meat. These points suggest that humans are so evolutionarily constrained to eating foods that (15) are digestible and easily chewed that cooking is normally obligatory. Furthermore, the widespread assumption that cooking could not have had any impact on biological evolution because its practice is too recent appears to be wrong. (Various European (20) and Middle Eastern sites that go back more than 250,000 years contain extensive evidence of hominid use of fire and apparent “earth ovens.”) The implication is that the adoption of cooked food created opportunities for humans to use diets of high caloric density more (25) efficiently. Selection for such efficiency, we suggest, led to an inability to survive on raw-food diets in the wild.

Important questions therefore arise concerning what limits the ability of humans to utilize raw food. (30) The principal effect of cooking considered to date has been a reduction in tooth and jaw size over evolutionary time. Human tooth and jaw size show signs of decreasing approximately 100,000 years ago; we suggest that this was a consequence of eating cooked (35) food. Subsequent population variation in the extent and timing of dental reduction is broadly explicable by regional variation in the times when improvements in cooking technology were adopted. It is also possible that the earliest impact of cooking was the reduction (40) of tooth and jaw size that accompanied the evolution of Homo ergaster approximately 1.9 million years ago. If so, the decrease in tooth and jaw size that started around 100,000 years ago may prove to result from later modifications in cooking technique, such as the (45) adoption of boiling.

The evolution of soft parts of the digestive system is harder to reconstruct because they leave no fossil record. Human digestive anatomy differs from that of the other great apes in ways that have traditionally (50) been explained as adaptations to a high raw-meat diet. Differences include the smaller gut volume, longer small intestine, and smaller colon. All such features are essentially adaptations to a diet of relatively high caloric density, however, and may therefore be at least (55) as well explained by the adoption of cooking as by eating raw meat. Testing between the cooking and raw-meat models for understanding human digestive anatomy is therefore warranted.

It might reasonably have been expected that the adoption of cooking by early humans would not have led to any changes in human digestive anatomy. After all, cooking makes food easier to eat, which means (5) that no special adaptations are required to process cooked food. However, current evidence suggests that humans today are capable of living on raw food only under unusual circumstances, such as a relatively sedentary lifestyle in a well supported urban (10) environment. Important theoretical obstacles to living on raw food in the wild today include both the low digestibility of much raw plant food, and the toughness of much raw meat. These points suggest that humans are so evolutionarily constrained to eating foods that (15) are digestible and easily chewed that cooking is normally obligatory. Furthermore, the widespread assumption that cooking could not have had any impact on biological evolution because its practice is too recent appears to be wrong. (Various European (20) and Middle Eastern sites that go back more than 250,000 years contain extensive evidence of hominid use of fire and apparent “earth ovens.”) The implication is that the adoption of cooked food created opportunities for humans to use diets of high caloric density more (25) efficiently. Selection for such efficiency, we suggest, led to an inability to survive on raw-food diets in the wild.

Important questions therefore arise concerning what limits the ability of humans to utilize raw food. (30) The principal effect of cooking considered to date has been a reduction in tooth and jaw size over evolutionary time. Human tooth and jaw size show signs of decreasing approximately 100,000 years ago; we suggest that this was a consequence of eating cooked (35) food. Subsequent population variation in the extent and timing of dental reduction is broadly explicable by regional variation in the times when improvements in cooking technology were adopted. It is also possible that the earliest impact of cooking was the reduction (40) of tooth and jaw size that accompanied the evolution of Homo ergaster approximately 1.9 million years ago. If so, the decrease in tooth and jaw size that started around 100,000 years ago may prove to result from later modifications in cooking technique, such as the (45) adoption of boiling.

The evolution of soft parts of the digestive system is harder to reconstruct because they leave no fossil record. Human digestive anatomy differs from that of the other great apes in ways that have traditionally (50) been explained as adaptations to a high raw-meat diet. Differences include the smaller gut volume, longer small intestine, and smaller colon. All such features are essentially adaptations to a diet of relatively high caloric density, however, and may therefore be at least (55) as well explained by the adoption of cooking as by eating raw meat. Testing between the cooking and raw-meat models for understanding human digestive anatomy is therefore warranted.

It might reasonably have been expected that the adoption of cooking by early humans would not have led to any changes in human digestive anatomy. After all, cooking makes food easier to eat, which means (5) that no special adaptations are required to process cooked food. However, current evidence suggests that humans today are capable of living on raw food only under unusual circumstances, such as a relatively sedentary lifestyle in a well supported urban (10) environment. Important theoretical obstacles to living on raw food in the wild today include both the low digestibility of much raw plant food, and the toughness of much raw meat. These points suggest that humans are so evolutionarily constrained to eating foods that (15) are digestible and easily chewed that cooking is normally obligatory. Furthermore, the widespread assumption that cooking could not have had any impact on biological evolution because its practice is too recent appears to be wrong. (Various European (20) and Middle Eastern sites that go back more than 250,000 years contain extensive evidence of hominid use of fire and apparent “earth ovens.”) The implication is that the adoption of cooked food created opportunities for humans to use diets of high caloric density more (25) efficiently. Selection for such efficiency, we suggest, led to an inability to survive on raw-food diets in the wild.

Important questions therefore arise concerning what limits the ability of humans to utilize raw food. (30) The principal effect of cooking considered to date has been a reduction in tooth and jaw size over evolutionary time. Human tooth and jaw size show signs of decreasing approximately 100,000 years ago; we suggest that this was a consequence of eating cooked (35) food. Subsequent population variation in the extent and timing of dental reduction is broadly explicable by regional variation in the times when improvements in cooking technology were adopted. It is also possible that the earliest impact of cooking was the reduction (40) of tooth and jaw size that accompanied the evolution of Homo ergaster approximately 1.9 million years ago. If so, the decrease in tooth and jaw size that started around 100,000 years ago may prove to result from later modifications in cooking technique, such as the (45) adoption of boiling.

The evolution of soft parts of the digestive system is harder to reconstruct because they leave no fossil record. Human digestive anatomy differs from that of the other great apes in ways that have traditionally (50) been explained as adaptations to a high raw-meat diet. Differences include the smaller gut volume, longer small intestine, and smaller colon. All such features are essentially adaptations to a diet of relatively high caloric density, however, and may therefore be at least (55) as well explained by the adoption of cooking as by eating raw meat. Testing between the cooking and raw-meat models for understanding human digestive anatomy is therefore warranted.

It might reasonably have been expected that the adoption of cooking by early humans would not have led to any changes in human digestive anatomy. After all, cooking makes food easier to eat, which means (5) that no special adaptations are required to process cooked food. However, current evidence suggests that humans today are capable of living on raw food only under unusual circumstances, such as a relatively sedentary lifestyle in a well supported urban (10) environment. Important theoretical obstacles to living on raw food in the wild today include both the low digestibility of much raw plant food, and the toughness of much raw meat. These points suggest that humans are so evolutionarily constrained to eating foods that (15) are digestible and easily chewed that cooking is normally obligatory. Furthermore, the widespread assumption that cooking could not have had any impact on biological evolution because its practice is too recent appears to be wrong. (Various European (20) and Middle Eastern sites that go back more than 250,000 years contain extensive evidence of hominid use of fire and apparent “earth ovens.”) The implication is that the adoption of cooked food created opportunities for humans to use diets of high caloric density more (25) efficiently. Selection for such efficiency, we suggest, led to an inability to survive on raw-food diets in the wild.

Important questions therefore arise concerning what limits the ability of humans to utilize raw food. (30) The principal effect of cooking considered to date has been a reduction in tooth and jaw size over evolutionary time. Human tooth and jaw size show signs of decreasing approximately 100,000 years ago; we suggest that this was a consequence of eating cooked (35) food. Subsequent population variation in the extent and timing of dental reduction is broadly explicable by regional variation in the times when improvements in cooking technology were adopted. It is also possible that the earliest impact of cooking was the reduction (40) of tooth and jaw size that accompanied the evolution of Homo ergaster approximately 1.9 million years ago. If so, the decrease in tooth and jaw size that started around 100,000 years ago may prove to result from later modifications in cooking technique, such as the (45) adoption of boiling.

The evolution of soft parts of the digestive system is harder to reconstruct because they leave no fossil record. Human digestive anatomy differs from that of the other great apes in ways that have traditionally (50) been explained as adaptations to a high raw-meat diet. Differences include the smaller gut volume, longer small intestine, and smaller colon. All such features are essentially adaptations to a diet of relatively high caloric density, however, and may therefore be at least (55) as well explained by the adoption of cooking as by eating raw meat. Testing between the cooking and raw-meat models for understanding human digestive anatomy is therefore warranted.