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 assumption that 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, depends on a faulty cause and effect assumption. This argument relies on anectodal evidence without considering the fact that they did not properly test their claims with control groups, and did not even consider alternate explanations.
The problem with anectodal evidence, is that it can be very persuading yet lack any kind of scientific or truthful standing. In this case, the argument states that because of the strong anectodal evidence that exists, they should believe that the effect is true. This is not a good point to stand on. If there was a group of people that all raved about how they have experienced health benefits by drinking their own urine, would it make their experience valid? No. Critical analysis and scientific inquiry is the only way that cause and effect relationship can become valid. This argument failed to examine properly the relationship, by relying on the anectodal evidence of others.
Seconly, the argument falls under the cause and effect assumption without even considering the fact that that there is no way to properly test the claims made by human ancestors. Without a control group in which to compare the effects, their claims can not be taken seriously. For example, if human ancestors who were eating bone broth were compared to people who were not, would only those who drank the bone broth experience the benefits? We should not then jump to the conclusion that they somehow knew more about our physiology that we don't now know. They are missing more logial reasoning.
Finally, when making a cause and effect claim, scientists must consider all possible variables that could be causing the effect. In this case, they assumed that it was the bone broth that was producing the benefits, but what if it was another cause. Maybe the benefits were actually coming from the reduced sugar in their diets, or because they were a lot more active. Untill all these possible third variables are considered, it would be wrong to assume that the benefits that they are experiencing are from the diet.
Before making such a bold claim that ancient humans have the key to health, it is important to analyze the steps taken to reach this conclusion. Anectodal evidence is not a reliable or valid source in which to make claims about cause and effect on. Furthermore, one must consider the research methods used to make these claims and look for valid measures such as control groups and ruling out third variables. Without taking these neessary steps, the evidence is not sufficient to make this claim. Therefore, the claim tat ancient humans knew something about our physiology that we don't is unwarrented.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-29 | jason123 | 69 | view |
| 2020-01-25 | Chayank_11 | 57 | view |
| 2020-01-07 | hyunjulia99 | 75 | view |
| 2019-12-29 | neha1980 | 50 | view |
| 2019-12-13 | noitsimani | 61 | view |
Comments
Essay evaluation 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: 22 15
No. of Words: 473 350
No. of Characters: 2283 1500
No. of Different Words: 209 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.664 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.827 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.416 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 154 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 111 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 79 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 45 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.781 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.455 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.287 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.495 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.064 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 80, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
... something about our physiology that we dont, and that by emulating the way they ate...
^^^^
Line 9, column 101, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: that
...ption without even considering the fact that that there is no way to properly test the cl...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 541, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
... knew more about our physiology that we dont now know. They are missing more logial ...
^^^^
Line 17, column 583, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
... something about our physiology that we dont is unwarrented.
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, finally, furthermore, if, look, may, so, then, therefore, third, for example, kind of, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.6327345309 132% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 27.0 13.6137724551 198% => OK
Pronoun: 60.0 28.8173652695 208% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2352.0 2260.96107784 104% => OK
No of words: 470.0 441.139720559 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.00425531915 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.65612321451 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.48953990997 2.78398813304 89% => OK
Unique words: 219.0 204.123752495 107% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.465957446809 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 721.8 705.55239521 102% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.22255489022 142% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 41.3847099165 57.8364921388 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.909090909 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3636363636 23.324526521 92% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.95454545455 5.70786347227 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.166111887583 0.218282227539 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0465779299858 0.0743258471296 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0346151950079 0.0701772020484 49% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.097525929854 0.128457276422 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0482198303685 0.0628817314937 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.3799401198 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.3550499002 121% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.72 12.5979740519 93% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.77 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 92.0 98.500998004 93% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.