Paleo diets, in which one eats how early hominids (human ancestors) did, are becoming increasingly popular. Proponents claim our bodies evolved to eat these types of food, especially bone broth, a soup made by cooking animal bones for several hours. They believe it has many health-promoting nutrients, such as cartilage, which can heal our joints, and chondroitin, which promotes nerve regeneration. Skeptics point out that ingested cartilage can’t replenish cartilage in your knees or elbows and ingested chondroitin doesn’t make our brains any healthier. Yet, there is strong anecdotal evidence that people who consume bone broth have fewer metabolic and inflammatory diseases than those who don’t. Therefore, ancient humans knew something about our physiology that we don’t, and that by emulating the way they ate, we can cure many chronic illnesses.
The argument says that Paleo diets, in which one eats how early hominids (human ancestors) did, should be emulated today as the argument believes that they can cure many chronic illnesses. One of the claims that the Proponents provide is that by following the Paleo diets, one can have many health-promoting nutrients. On the other hand, Skeptics are against this claim and provide an evidence that people who followed these diets are more likely to get inflammatory diseases than those don't follow. Some of the assumptions that are made in this argument are weak due to the following reasons.
Firstly, the proponents claim that people today are evolved to eat tthe food that was eaten long ago by the early hominids. This is a weak claim because not all the people are same on many standpoints such as their economical conditions, their tastes can be different depending on the areas in which they live in. For example, people belonging to the Asian countries are more likely to eat exotic food like bone broth than the people in the US. This claim could suffice, if there was more information on how and in what basis, all human bodies are evolved to eat the food according to the Paleo diet.
Secondly, it is assumed that the hominids knew something more about the human physiology than what we know now. Because of the advancements in the medical sciences that we have made today, it is more likely that the humans today know more about the human physiology that the hominids knew before. This assumption does not provide any evidence or information on what the homnids knew and how that knowledge on human physiology helped them to be more inclined to the food that they were eating.
In conclusion, the argument made with the provided evidences that it stands as now, is flawed because of the many unwarranted assumptions. To actually prove this argument, it is requested to alleviate more evidence on how the Paloe diets helped in curing the chronic diseases. These evidences can be collected through attempting experiments on the mass number of people and their diets. These evidences can then be more helpful to the claim assumptions and provide a solid support to the argument.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-23 | Ruhani | 59 | view |
| 2023-08-18 | Mayuresh08 | 70 | view |
| 2023-08-18 | Akash Konar | 55 | view |
| 2023-08-13 | fabjaved | 62 | view |
| 2023-07-16 | hello_kratnesh101 | 47 | view |
- An international development organization in response to a vitamin A deficiency among people in the impoverished nation of Tagus has engineered a new breed of millet high in vitamin A While seeds for this new type of millet cost more farmers will be paid 58
- Summarize the points made in the lecture being sure to explain how they respond to the specific points made in the reading passage 73
- People who make decisions based on emotion and justify those decisions with logic afterwards are poor decision makers 58
- It is more important for students to understand ideas and concepts than it is for them to learn facts 73
- It is more important for students to understand ideas and concepts than it is for them to learn facts 73
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 5 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 375 350
No. of Characters: 1781 1500
No. of Different Words: 172 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.401 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.749 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.496 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 109 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 85 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 63 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 39 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 5.989 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.368 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.368 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.159 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 486, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...to get inflammatory diseases than those dont follow. Some of the assumptions that ar...
^^^^
Line 1, column 499, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: Some
...matory diseases than those dont follow. Some of the assumptions that are made in this argum...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 215, Rule ID: ECONOMICAL_ECONOMIC[1]
Message: Did you mean 'economic' (=connected with economy)?
Suggestion: economic
... same on many standpoints such as their economical conditions, their tastes can be differe...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, first, firstly, if, second, secondly, so, then, for example, in conclusion, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.9520958084 54% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 18.0 13.6137724551 132% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 28.8173652695 135% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 44.0 55.5748502994 79% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1816.0 2260.96107784 80% => OK
No of words: 374.0 441.139720559 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.85561497326 5.12650576532 95% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.3976220399 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55023031966 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 172.0 204.123752495 84% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.459893048128 0.468620217663 98% => OK
syllable_count: 578.7 705.55239521 82% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 33.0853441874 57.8364921388 57% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 121.066666667 119.503703932 101% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.9333333333 23.324526521 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.46666666667 5.70786347227 131% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.249505709039 0.218282227539 114% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0902178210712 0.0743258471296 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0719403123439 0.0701772020484 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.151833376682 0.128457276422 118% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0833920552934 0.0628817314937 133% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 48.3550499002 115% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.2 12.5979740519 89% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.95 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 74.0 98.500998004 75% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.