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.'
Human's are rapidly changing the way they live, They have pushed humanity towards the betterment.However, Author has suggested to look back and adapt old practice without presenting a concrete proves and findings and hence, presented a weak assestion.
Firstly, Author has assumed the claims from proponents of Paleo diets to be true, on the basis of merely by their 'belives'.One could not accept any practice from merely relying on other's belives, for an instance, would you belive in necromancy if some random group of gurus have belive in it, without any concrete proof.
In addition, author has mentioned about the skeptics for health promoting nutrients such as cartilage, chondroitin etc, which futher weakens his argument, as author has not provided any such statment/findings to bolster his argument and instead he/she deviated towards strong anecdotal.
Secondly, Author has mentioned about strong anecdotal, which is simply an informal evidence. Here author should have relied on the tested and proved evidences to make his argument stronger.
The argument relies on erratic assumptions and hence, presented a weak argument which could have been reliable if assumptions presented in the argument could have been buttressed by proved finding and evidences.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 97, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: However
... pushed humanity towards the betterment.However, Author has suggested to look back and ...
^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 123, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: One
...on the basis of merely by their belives.One could not accept any practice from mere...
^^^
Line 5, column 195, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e from merely relying on others belives, for an instance, would you belive in nec...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, hence, however, if, look, second, secondly, so, in addition, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 5.0 19.6327345309 25% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 5.0 12.9520958084 39% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 13.6137724551 22% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 10.0 28.8173652695 35% => OK
Preposition: 23.0 55.5748502994 41% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1095.0 2260.96107784 48% => More number of characters wanted.
No of words: 195.0 441.139720559 44% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.61538461538 5.12650576532 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 3.73687570622 4.56307096286 82% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85770352346 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 119.0 204.123752495 58% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.610256410256 0.468620217663 130% => OK
syllable_count: 328.5 705.55239521 47% => syllable counts are too short.
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 1.0 8.76447105788 11% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 6.0 19.7664670659 30% => 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: 32.0 22.8473053892 140% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 87.9325814979 57.8364921388 152% => OK
Chars per sentence: 182.5 119.503703932 153% => OK
Words per sentence: 32.5 23.324526521 139% => OK
Discourse Markers: 14.8333333333 5.70786347227 260% => Less transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
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 : 3.0 6.88822355289 44% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 0.0 4.67664670659 0% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.0573985852906 0.218282227539 26% => The similarity between the topic and the content is low.
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0283256006838 0.0743258471296 38% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0197397386073 0.0701772020484 28% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0322528578406 0.128457276422 25% => Maybe some paragraphs are off the topic.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0178260722331 0.0628817314937 28% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 21.3 14.3799401198 148% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 30.54 48.3550499002 63% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 17.0 12.197005988 139% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.91 12.5979740519 126% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.33 8.32208582834 124% => OK
difficult_words: 63.0 98.500998004 64% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 14.8 11.1389221557 133% => OK
text_standard: 18.0 11.9071856287 151% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum 250 words wanted.
It is not exactly right on the topic in the view of e-grader. Maybe there is a wrong essay topic.
Rates: 16.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 1.0 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.