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.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
In the argument, it is stated that people should emulate the diet of ancient humans and paleo diets are in vogue, owing to the same line of thought. Such a conclusion has been reached based on the opinion of proponents, who state that human body has been evolved to eat food such as bone broth and doing so would promote health benefits. Also, they suggest emulating such a diet in the current times would prove fecund. The conclusion drawn based on the above premise seems based on unwarranted assumptions, poor reasoning and logical fallacies, that make the overall argument weak. This weakness can be exposed in three ways.
Firstly, the argument makes the most common logical fallacy of correlation-causation. This means relating two incidents that may be independent of each other and may not have no impact on the other. To illustrate this, the point of consuming bone broth is helpful since it contains cartilage, which can healing joints, and chrondrotin, which promotes nerve regeneration. It is possible that these occurrences are mere co-incidences and may not have anything to do with the improvement. It is possible a person consuming bone broth was also exercising that helped in reaching the outcome. Another possibility is that people who are relatively healthier experienced the same since their bodies were more prone to show improvement than others, reducing the above observation to a mere correlation. Had the author firmly established a logical relation between the premise and the result, the argument would have been strengthened.
In addition to that, there is no scientific research that corroborates the improvement in health shown by resorting to paleo diets. In fact, there is a rebuttal put forward by skeptics stating that the human body does not respond in the suggested way to cartilage and chondrontin. For example. a study showing a detailed analysis of the number of people showing improvement in health due to consumption of bone broth along with integrating the study with multiple metrics such as age group, health status, geographical area, ancestral trends, life habits etc. would have accounted for a robust research. Moreover, a trend observing the improvement for a considerable amount of time would have been the right approach. Had the author paid heed to improving the results based on statistical data rather anecdotal evidence, the argument would have held more water than it does now.
Finally, it is evident to see that two eras are not comparable unless there is very strong evidence suggesting the same. The author is comparing human ancestors with the current generation, without conceding to the fact that there is a humongous gap between the lifestyle, eating habits, environmental conditions etc. of the two compared eras. Such extraneous factors can pose a huge impact on the overall conclusion since results may not be identical in different conditions. Since not all eras are alike and we should derive results based only on comparable data, the argument is further weakened.
Although the author tries to make a case for himself by stating anecdotal evidence and observations that inkle at certain conclusions, the weak assumptions and poor reasoning make the argument susceptible to criticism. Had the author showcased information to the questions posed above, it would have been easier to evaluate the correctness of the response. But based on the supporting arguments mentioned here, the argument is too weak to be true.
| 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 |
- Understanding the past is of little use to those in current positions of leadership Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing and s 73
- According to a recent report by our marketing department during the past year fewer people attended Super Screen produced movies than in any other year And yet the percentage of positive reviews by movie reviewers about specific Super Screen movies actual 58
- 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 57
- The best way for a society to prepare its young people for leadership in government industry or other fields is by instilling in them a sense of cooperation not competition 66
- Undergraduate students majoring in Business or in the Sciences should not be required to take any courses in the Humanities since those courses won t benefit their future careers Write a response to the prompt in which you discuss whether or not you agree 66
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 563 350
No. of Characters: 2864 1500
No. of Different Words: 282 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.871 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.087 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.812 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 200 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 160 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 116 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 79 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.458 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.77 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.542 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.275 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.48 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.041 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 295, Rule ID: UPPERCASE_SENTENCE_START
Message: This sentence does not start with an uppercase letter
Suggestion: A
...cartilage and chondrontin. For example. a study showing a detailed analysis of th...
^
Line 5, column 586, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[3]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'robust research'.
Suggestion: robust research
...fe habits etc. would have accounted for a robust research. Moreover, a trend observing the improv...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, firstly, if, may, moreover, so, then, for example, in addition, in conclusion, in fact, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 55.5748502994 119% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2934.0 2260.96107784 130% => OK
No of words: 563.0 441.139720559 128% => OK
Chars per words: 5.21136767318 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.87110059796 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90101847293 2.78398813304 104% => OK
Unique words: 292.0 204.123752495 143% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.51865008881 0.468620217663 111% => OK
syllable_count: 918.9 705.55239521 130% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 58.2599067563 57.8364921388 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.846153846 119.503703932 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.6538461538 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.69230769231 5.70786347227 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.20758483034 183% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.117195011466 0.218282227539 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0311436692472 0.0743258471296 42% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0396903457149 0.0701772020484 57% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0634373034186 0.128457276422 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.041988559306 0.0628817314937 67% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.3799401198 97% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.94 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.94 8.32208582834 107% => OK
difficult_words: 152.0 98.500998004 154% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.