The claim that emulating the way ancient humans ate can cure many illnesses seems reasonable at first sight, but this claim has several logical flaws and is grounded on some fallacious assumptions making this claim unconvincing and untenable. One must analyze their proof and data objectively and critically before making a claim.
First and foremost, the argument that we can maintain health by blindly imitating ancient human's diet is not taking manifold differences between contemporary humans and ancient humans into account. In more detail, our body, culture, and habit would have a significant influence on our health, and they are far different from those of ancient humans. We now live a completely different life compared to ancient humans. For example, what we eat, where we live, and what we wear are imcomparably developed compared to those of ancient lives, and thus it is erroneous to conclude that eating ancient food is good ignoring other differences.It may be true that paelo diets are healthy for ancient humans, however, we can not simply apply this case to modern human beings.
Secondly, the argument mentioned that there is strong anecdotal evidence that people consuming bone broth have fewer particular diseases. However, this claim is somewhat pointless as it is still limited to an anecdote, meaning we are not given any scientifically or statistically convincing data that supports the claim. I am not claiming that argument based on anecdote is completely invalid, however they are not as credible as when some scientific results are presented. Scientific investigations and experiments proving that a strong correlation exists between bone broth and disease prevention are to some extent necessary for this argument to be persuasive enough. Otherwise, this argument is greatly weakened.
Thirdly, the author provided virtually no evidence that the diets of ancient ancestors did exert a benignant influence on their health. That is to say, there is no logical connection between hominids' health and their diets. True, their diets may have affected their health, but it is unclear from the author's claim how much influence their diets had and whether they had a good or bad influence, meaning it is unfair to from their claims to draw a conclusion that imitating ancient humans diet is for us too. The detailed archeological analysis must be conducted to verify the relation between these facts to support the author's claim
Finally, although the argument seems cogent at first sight, however, as shown above, the author's claim is based on several fallacious assumptions, and have logical flaws, and suffers from a lack of statistically and scientifically convincing data. To bolster the author's belief more detailed research on the topic must be done. One thing the author can do immediately to corroborate his or her statement is looking for scientific thesis that did research on the relationship between bone broth consumption and their health.
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 475 350
No. of Characters: 2459 1500
No. of Different Words: 236 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.668 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.177 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.749 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 184 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 148 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 101 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 62 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 26.389 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 13.679 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.556 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.32 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.579 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.169 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 637, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: It
...food is good ignoring other differences.It may be true that paelo diets are health...
^^
Line 9, column 264, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...fically convincing data. To bolster the authors belief more detailed research on the to...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, first, however, if, look, may, second, secondly, so, still, third, thirdly, thus, for example, that is to say
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 23.0 11.1786427146 206% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 51.0 28.8173652695 177% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 41.0 55.5748502994 74% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2516.0 2260.96107784 111% => OK
No of words: 474.0 441.139720559 107% => OK
Chars per words: 5.30801687764 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.66599839874 4.56307096286 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80684290098 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 240.0 204.123752495 118% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.506329113924 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 774.0 705.55239521 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 8.0 1.67365269461 478% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.22255489022 47% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 17.0 19.7664670659 86% => OK
Sentence length: 27.0 22.8473053892 118% => OK
Sentence length SD: 92.506840671 57.8364921388 160% => OK
Chars per sentence: 148.0 119.503703932 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 27.8823529412 23.324526521 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.23529411765 5.70786347227 127% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => 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: 0.161851698584 0.218282227539 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0514124961924 0.0743258471296 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0295444338066 0.0701772020484 42% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0872434403771 0.128457276422 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.00262170351355 0.0628817314937 4% => 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: 17.5 14.3799401198 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 44.07 48.3550499002 91% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.81 12.5979740519 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.24 8.32208582834 111% => OK
difficult_words: 128.0 98.500998004 130% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 12.3882235529 121% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.8 11.1389221557 115% => 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.