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 following argument that emulating the way early humans ate may cure many chronic disease is flawed for numerous reasons. Primarily, the argument is based on the unwarranted assumption that correlation equals casuation rendering its main argument that eating foods out paletoithic ancestors did will protects against chronic diseases invalid.
The crux of the arugment is based on the fallacy that having fewer diseased is directly caused by eating bone broth. The aurgment does not take into considerations the variety of variables that could confound this relationship such as the amount of excersise people who eat bone broth get, their genetic predispostion for developing metabolic diseases, and what thier diet as a whole consists of. One can not make the conclusion that eating more bone broth, and therefore eating other foods our ancestors ate, will protect against these diseases without examining other factors that may contribute to this relaitonship. Additionally, the arugument states that this was based on anecdotal evidence. Anecdotes is not the same as data collected through scietifically rigourous processess. To esablish bone broth and other paleotlithic food's ability to cure against chronic dieases, scientific experiements must be conducted in large groups of diverse subjects, from all over the world, controlling for potentially relevant variables.
The argument also attempts to extrapolate a lower prevalnce of matabolic and infammatory diseases to a cure for said diseases. Even if these foods did protect against diseases such as diabetes or cancer, that does not necessarily mean they will cure them once someone develops them. For example, it is well known that smoking creates more inflammation in the body, which severely increased one's chances of developing cancer. So it can be deduced that not smoking lowers one's chances of developing cancer. However, once cancer has already developed in a smoker's body, smoking cessation would not cure them. This can be applied to the paleo argument for curing metabloic dieases.
In conclusion, this arugment is invalid because it relies on too many logical fallacies, such as depending on anecdotal evidence and assuming that correlation equals causation.
| 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: 15 15
No. of Words: 343 350
No. of Characters: 1862 1500
No. of Different Words: 197 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.304 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.429 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.782 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 146 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 124 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 87 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.867 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.351 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.315 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.529 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.1 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 304, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'did' requires the base form of the verb: 'protect'
Suggestion: protect
...oods out paletoithic ancestors did will protects against chronic diseases invalid. ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 391, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...n in the body, which severely increased ones chances of developing cancer. So it can...
^^^^
Line 9, column 471, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
... can be deduced that not smoking lowers ones chances of developing cancer. However, ...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, so, therefore, well, for example, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.6327345309 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 34.0 55.5748502994 61% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1907.0 2260.96107784 84% => OK
No of words: 343.0 441.139720559 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.55976676385 5.12650576532 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.30351707066 4.56307096286 94% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.84063177099 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 205.0 204.123752495 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.597667638484 0.468620217663 128% => OK
syllable_count: 601.2 705.55239521 85% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => 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: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.1656190391 57.8364921388 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.133333333 119.503703932 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8666666667 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.66666666667 5.70786347227 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 2.0 8.20758483034 24% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.20535178941 0.218282227539 94% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0638855103689 0.0743258471296 86% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0573218494514 0.0701772020484 82% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.100708986829 0.128457276422 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0733003643525 0.0628817314937 117% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.2 14.3799401198 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 32.22 48.3550499002 67% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.26 12.5979740519 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.98 8.32208582834 120% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 98.500998004 116% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.9071856287 126% => 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.