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.
The argument describes how reverting back to Paleo diets can help to cure many diseases. It has been said that ingesting animal body components can lead to healing of the same human components. However, the author of this argument predicates their argument on several unstated assumptions which if false can trounce the validity of the argument and have an impact on the cogency of the argument.
It has been said that there is a strong "anecdotal" evidence that consuming bone broth leads to fewer metabolic and inflammatory diseases than those who don't. What is this evidence based on? Who is the authority that takes responsibility for the validity of this evidence? The evidence is said to be anecdotal which in fact plays a role to deter its veritableness.This evidence, for example, could've been purported for other ulterior motives such as by poultry farmers to increase their business. There is no trust worthy source of this information and the information seems purely apocryphal. Were this evidence to have a credible source or a scientific authority or organization behind it, it could've been considered to have the said effects.
Ingesting animal components directly could have many side effects for the body. Each animal has certain body defense mechanisms to prevent itself against possible predators. Even after hours of cooking there is a possiblity that some microorganisms or pathogens might be lurking in the bone broth that could be detrimental to the health of the consumer. For example, frogs such as the Poison Dart frog are highly venomous and eating any of its body parts could pose a serious health risk to the consumer and might even prove to be fatal. Had the passage also listed the health risks involved in ingesting these components other than the predisposed benefits, it could help to bolster the argument's validity.
There seems no possible connection between the diet of early hominids and their understanding of human physiology. With medical research being performed by top researchers and doctors around the world at such great pace there is only little account for the hominids to know something that research worth centuries has not been able to account for. It could be the case that the early hominids found consuming animal components as the most approachable source of energy and hadn't been exposed to agriculture to grow crops and sustain themselves. This could be the reason they had to resort to the diet they followed. Besides, such a diet could prove useful for the kind of work they did compared to the work modern day humans do. Therefore, there is no evidence that as a result of their diet the hominids understood aspects of physiology better than modern humans.
The argument refers to consumption of animals but fails to account for what kind of animals. Are they aquatic animals? Are they amphibians? Do they refer to reptiles such as snakes and lizzards? There is an opaqueness regarding the species of animals that should be consumed to produced the said effects. Consuming each kind of animal has its own benefits and adversities. Following the prompt a person could consume a lethal animal and instead of ameliorating their condition could in turn end up further making it worse. Therefore, had the argument specified the kind of animals this argument refers for producing its effects, it could've strengthened its claim.
Thus, it can be seen that the argument is not cogent and relies on several unstated assumptions like a baseless evidence and side effects of the diet.
- Although sound moral judgment is an important characteristic of an effective leader it is not as important as a leader s ability to maintain the respect of his or her peers Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree wi 66
- 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 62
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: 28 15
No. of Words: 591 350
No. of Characters: 2908 1500
No. of Different Words: 275 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.931 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.92 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.628 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 204 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 159 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 114 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 64 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.107 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.763 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.429 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.26 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.494 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.073 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 296, Rule ID: IF_IS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'is'?
Suggestion: is
...t on several unstated assumptions which if false can trounce the validity of the a...
^^
Line 3, column 164, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...nd inflammatory diseases than those who dont. What is this evidence based on? Who is...
^^^^
Line 3, column 375, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: This
...plays a role to deter its veritableness.This evidence, for example, couldve been pur...
^^^^
Line 5, column 689, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguments'' or 'argument's'?
Suggestion: arguments'; argument's
... benefits, it could help to bolster the arguments validity. There seems no possible co...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 474, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: hadn't
... most approachable source of energy and hadnt been exposed to agriculture to grow cro...
^^^^^
Line 7, column 687, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'did' requires the base form of the verb: 'compare'
Suggestion: compare
...ve useful for the kind of work they did compared to the work modern day humans do. There...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, besides, but, however, if, regarding, so, then, therefore, thus, for example, in fact, kind of, such as, as a result
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 : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 48.0 28.8173652695 167% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 67.0 55.5748502994 121% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 16.3942115768 140% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2974.0 2260.96107784 132% => OK
No of words: 585.0 441.139720559 133% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08376068376 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.9180050066 4.56307096286 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79974430858 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 282.0 204.123752495 138% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.482051282051 0.468620217663 103% => OK
syllable_count: 931.5 705.55239521 132% => 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: 4.0 8.76447105788 46% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 19.7664670659 147% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.01874027 57.8364921388 99% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.551724138 119.503703932 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.1724137931 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.20689655172 5.70786347227 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.183609153235 0.218282227539 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0507991484125 0.0743258471296 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0304305880131 0.0701772020484 43% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0869722550017 0.128457276422 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0332008289101 0.0628817314937 53% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.6 14.3799401198 88% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.18 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.41 8.32208582834 101% => OK
difficult_words: 140.0 98.500998004 142% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.