Below is a passage from a book review on Mark Cohen‘s ‘Health and the Rise of Civilization’：
Professor Cohen has made a good case against the view that Larger societies always improved living for their people. To be sure，the case is tendencious. His shrewd arguments must often go beyond what has been tested quantitatively. Was the introduction of cooking pots healthy or not？Pots can preserve bacteria，and boasted meat is safer. Such logic can raise a hypothesis，but can it fix a rate？
If you are patient enough to follow my reasoning:
1.His shrewd arguments must often go beyond what has been tested quantitatively.[= his arguments wasn’t always backed up by figures]
• 2. Was the introduction of cooking pots healthy or not?Pots can preserve bacteria[=serve as a nutrient medium for bacteria]—one side of the argument: cooking pots aren’t healthy.
• the other side: roasted meat is safer (pots are healthy).
• Such logic can raise a hypothesis, but can it fix a rate?[=Which arguments prevail (who could count all the pros and cons?]