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 is flawed as it assumes a couple of unwarranted assumptions. For one, it assumes that the capabilities of human body of early hominids is identical to the capability of current human body thereby asserting that what proved to be nutritous for early hominids will also be nutritious for the modern man.
Firstly the argument assumes that the capabilities of human body has remained constant over the time from early hominids to the modern man and thus makes a claim that whatever proved to be beneficial for early hominids should be beneficial for modern man. To provide an evidence the argument draws up a relationship between consumption of bone broth and reduced inflammatory and metabolic diseases. However this evidence is moot as the consumption of bone broth is intended to replenish chondroitin and promote nerve regeneration which is completely unrelated to reduced inflammatory and metabolic diseases. Had the argument cited evidence of chondroitin replenishment and promotion of nerve regeneration, the argument might have held true.
Secondly, the argument assumes that ancient humans knew something about physiology that we dont and that by emulating the way they ate, a lot of diseases can be cured. This claim is baseless as not only the disesases/illlness that effected early hominids might be very different from the ones effecting us now, but infact human physiology might have completely changed. The cures that worked for early hominids for curing certain diseases might not work for us in the same way. In such cases, its not only imprudent, but also dangerous as our body might not be accustomed to ingest such food as the argument suggests. In making such a strong claim, the argument should have provided solid evidence that by using the cures or ways of early hominids to combat chronic illness that we face now, actually do work for combating the same disease and are not harmful to the modern man.
Therefore, the argument fails to make a convincing case that by emulating the early hominid ways, we can cure many diseases.
| 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 |
- Science and technology will one day be able to solve all of society s problems 66
- 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 50
- 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 60
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 3 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 9 2
No. of Sentences: 12 15
No. of Words: 340 350
No. of Characters: 1697 1500
No. of Different Words: 162 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.294 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.991 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.723 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 117 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 99 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 78 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 42 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 28.333 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.339 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.75 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.405 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.609 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.238 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 400, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...ed inflammatory and metabolic diseases. However this evidence is moot as the consumptio...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 92, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...knew something about physiology that we dont and that by emulating the way they ate,...
^^^^
Line 5, column 562, Rule ID: ADMIT_ENJOY_VB[4]
Message: This verb is used with the gerund form: 'accustomed to ingesting'.
Suggestion: accustomed to ingesting
...also dangerous as our body might not be accustomed to ingest such food as the argument suggests. In ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, first, firstly, however, if, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, in the same way
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.6327345309 71% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 28.8173652695 83% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 55.5748502994 61% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1733.0 2260.96107784 77% => OK
No of words: 339.0 441.139720559 77% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.11209439528 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.29091512845 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.8357213083 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 162.0 204.123752495 79% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.477876106195 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 564.3 705.55239521 80% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 12.0 19.7664670659 61% => 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: 28.0 22.8473053892 123% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 58.6775558076 57.8364921388 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 144.416666667 119.503703932 121% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.25 23.324526521 121% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.66666666667 5.70786347227 152% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.174682422384 0.218282227539 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0672287612658 0.0743258471296 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0459073382015 0.0701772020484 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.11051966136 0.128457276422 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0409007589991 0.0628817314937 65% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.8 14.3799401198 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.6 48.3550499002 72% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.197005988 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.7 8.32208582834 105% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 98.500998004 80% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.1389221557 119% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => 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.