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.
In the argument, it is stated by the author that following a hominid like Paleo diet, will cure many chronic illnesses, and that the benefits of such diets were perhaps foreseen by our ancient human ancestors. To support this argument, the author refers to a correlation between Paleo diet followers and a reduced presence of metabolic and inflammatory diseases in them. However, before the conclusion can be evaluated, the author has to provide evidence to nullify the following unstated assumptions.
First of all, were human ancestors really able to see benefits in their diet, which modern humans could not identify until recently? Perhaps, isn't it plausible that early human diet was so primitive in nature, that our ancestors consumed whatever they could, and hence could have included animal bones, cartilages etc. as well in their diet while scavenging for food? It's also possible that these were the sources of food most readily available to hominids back then, and hence could have led to their more frequent consumption. If that is the case indeed, it could weaken the argument's stance that early hominids were in fact more knowledgeable than modern humans( in at least some part of our physiology).
Secondly, how effective can the diet prove to a larger section of the population? The author mentions scientific evidence supporting the Paleo diet consumer's benefits of having the diet, but does not mention the sample space of the generalization. It could have been that only a few people were part of this study, and perhaps a larger scale study might reveal results contradictory to the author's conclusion. Maybe, the individuals under the study had an exclusive population of unhealthy individuals leaning more on the normal diet followers' side .If that holds true, the argument is severely flawed for assuming Paleo diet benefitting a large section of the population.
In conclusion, the argument as it stands now is severely flawed as it relies on many assumptions, like the ones stated above. If the author is able to provide further evidence, and answer the questions presented in the above paragraphs, then perhaps the conclusion of this argument could be studied more thoroughly and might be providing some useful insight. Until then, the author's conclusive statements will be heavily debatable.
| 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 |
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 8 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 14 15
No. of Words: 376 350
No. of Characters: 1904 1500
No. of Different Words: 196 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.403 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.064 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.655 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 137 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 105 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 80 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 49 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.857 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.935 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.786 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.367 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.592 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.11 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 143, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...d not identify until recently? Perhaps, isnt it plausible that early human diet was ...
^^^^
Line 3, column 289, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...hey could, and hence could have included animal bones, cartilages etc. as well in...
^^
Line 3, column 579, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'arguments'' or 'argument's'?
Suggestion: arguments'; argument's
...is the case indeed, it could weaken the arguments stance that early hominids were in fact...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 391, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ght reveal results contradictory to the authors conclusion. Maybe, the individuals unde...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 449, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
.... Maybe, the individuals under the study had an exclusive population of unhealthy...
^^
Line 5, column 550, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...g more on the normal diet followers side .If that holds true, the argument is seve...
^^
Line 5, column 552, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: If
...more on the normal diet followers side .If that holds true, the argument is severe...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, however, if, may, really, second, secondly, so, then, well, while, as to, at least, in conclusion, in fact, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 13.6137724551 73% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 55.5748502994 81% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1952.0 2260.96107784 86% => OK
No of words: 375.0 441.139720559 85% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.20533333333 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.40055868397 4.56307096286 96% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73369883735 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.546666666667 0.468620217663 117% => OK
syllable_count: 615.6 705.55239521 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 6.0 1.67365269461 358% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => 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: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 56.5233481748 57.8364921388 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 130.133333333 119.503703932 109% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 23.324526521 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.66666666667 5.70786347227 169% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 7.0 5.25449101796 133% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => 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: 0.151911444981 0.218282227539 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0563675315796 0.0743258471296 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0409389467399 0.0701772020484 58% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.087332375966 0.128457276422 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0512524972496 0.0628817314937 82% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.6 14.3799401198 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.17 8.32208582834 110% => OK
difficult_words: 102.0 98.500998004 104% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.