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

Essay topics:

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 passage states that a culinary recipe is good for our heath becaus of certain nutrients within bones is beneficial to us and that there is anecdotal evidence. However, the argument is not sound because it is missing some information to substantiate it. To be specific, it should provide evidence about chondroitin and cartilage to corroborate the notions of the proposition or the opposition. Moreover, anecdotal evidence is not enough to prove that these recipies are truly efficient, and concluding that ancient humans possessed more knowledge than the contemporary humans are absurd.

First of all, there is not scientific proof that shows the effects of chondroitin or cartilage. If the passaged adduced experimental results from scientific papers, either the advocates or dissidents would have been cogent. However, neither sides presents evidence and thus there is the possibility of other conclusions such as cartilage rather than repleteing the substance in one's knees, could help alleviate the pain felt in the joints. Hence, more information about the relationship between theses substances and their effects are needed.

Next, the passage presents anecdotal evidence as proof that this diet is salubrious for people, which however, could be the result of exterior influences rather than the diet itself. For instance, people practicing this diet could usually be vegitarians and bone eating is their supplant way of protein intake. In this case, the propitious health conditions could have resulted from the vegetarian diet, not from the substances innate in the paleo diets. Consequently, for this aphorism to be accepted, there should be more information regarding that other than this special food intake, the people practicing this diet does not have any abnormalities, or scientific evidence regarding this issue.

Finally, the conclusion that the passage makes in the end is illogical. Even if cartilage and chondroitin is healthy to us, it does not mean that our ancestors were more informed about our physiology. This food could have been the result of extreme frugality: in our ancestors endeavor to eat anything that could be digested due to the desultory food sources. In addition, imitating them could not be helpful in curing inveterate disease because of the change in physiology from our ancient form. What could have been a good source of nutritions could have become a source of poison for our bodies.

In conclusion, the passage needs to provide additional proof to reinforce it's asseverations. It should provide scientific evidence about the substances that seem salubrious, and objective proof rather than a story to be coherent. Last but not least, it should elucidate on how it reached the conclusion that our ancestors had profound knowledge that contemporary humans doesn't.

Average: 6.9 (3 votes)
This essay topic by users
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
Essay Categories
Essays by user jason123 :


Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 379, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...rather than repleteing the substance in ones knees, could help alleviate the pain fe...
Line 17, column 371, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...ound knowledge that contemporary humans doesnt.

Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, finally, first, hence, however, if, moreover, regarding, so, thus, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, such as, first of all

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.6327345309 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 12.9520958084 108% => OK
Conjunction : 13.0 11.1786427146 116% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 43.0 28.8173652695 149% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 46.0 55.5748502994 83% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK

Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2392.0 2260.96107784 106% => OK
No of words: 441.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.42403628118 5.12650576532 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58257569496 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85823504302 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 216.0 204.123752495 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.489795918367 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 740.7 705.55239521 105% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK

A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK

Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 42.5681512401 57.8364921388 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.6 119.503703932 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.05 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.45 5.70786347227 131% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 6.88822355289 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.67664670659 235% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.12002266437 0.218282227539 55% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0369561189661 0.0743258471296 50% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.037694215661 0.0701772020484 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0654798172984 0.128457276422 51% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0284926002656 0.0628817314937 45% => 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: 15.1 14.3799401198 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.3550499002 84% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.16 12.5979740519 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.95 8.32208582834 108% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 98.500998004 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => 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.

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: 20 15
No. of Words: 442 350
No. of Characters: 2324 1500
No. of Different Words: 215 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.585 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.258 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.782 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 175 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 135 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 102 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 74 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.1 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.526 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.7 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.297 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.535 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.066 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5