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 conclusion made by author of the argument states the we can cure many chronic illnesses by following the way ancient humans ate. He ascribes this conclusion to the increasing consumption of Paleo diets and how the proponents support consumption of these foods by considering the example of bone broth. Again he makes the use of anecdotal evidence to support his argument. But the author fails to take into account certain understated assumptions which might weaken the argument. These are stated as follows.
First, the author assumes that consumption of bone broth is the only factor involved in lessening the metabolic and inflammatory diseases. What if people in contemporary world consuming bone broth might also be consuming some other material too. Considering this other material to be benificial to increase immunity against metalbolic and inflammatory diseases, bone broth may fail to become the actual reason of why these diseases are not occuring. Hence, this this must have created a misconception of how bone broth may have been responsible for lesser inflammatory and metabolic diseases. Hence by not eating the way ancient people ate or simply by not following them, we can still have better immune system and cure chronic illnesses. This weakens the argument.
Again, even if it is true that bone broth results on fewer metabolic and inflammatory diseases, only based on the result obtained from bone broth consumption, one should not directly conclude to follow ancient eating habits. What if other edible stuff used by ancient people, may have been detrimental to health. If this point goes true, we can state that by emulating the way ancient people ate, we instead of curing chronic illnesses may rather invoke other diseases. This weakens the argument.
Lastly, author fails to take into account the time gap between the ancient and current generation. What if over these years our body structures may have changed drastically. If so, there might be a possibility that bodies in present generation may react differently to any given food material with respect to ancient people. If this statement becomes true, then following the eating habits and following diets of ancient people will not necessarily have same effects on bodies of current generation. This point will weaken the argument that how emulating the way ancient people ate, may cure chronic illnesses in bodies of our generation.
If the author is able to provide justification for the above stated assumptions, then with further considerations, we can conclude that emulating the way the ate, we can cure many diseases.
Comments
e-rater score 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: 21 15
No. of Words: 420 350
No. of Characters: 2147 1500
No. of Different Words: 187 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.527 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.112 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.669 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 160 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 116 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 79 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 53 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.891 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.714 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.323 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.323 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.117 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 54, Rule ID: DT_PRP[1]
Message: Possible typo. Did you mean 'the' or 'we'?
Suggestion: the; we
...n made by author of the argument states the we can cure many chronic illnesses by foll...
^^^^^^
Line 2, column 457, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a word
Suggestion: this
...these diseases are not occuring. Hence, this this must have created a misconception of ho...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 593, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...er inflammatory and metabolic diseases. Hence by not eating the way ancient people at...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, if, lastly, may, so, still, then, it is true, with respect to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 10.0 19.6327345309 51% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 55.5748502994 88% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2193.0 2260.96107784 97% => OK
No of words: 420.0 441.139720559 95% => OK
Chars per words: 5.22142857143 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52701905584 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74200032087 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 204.123752495 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.469047619048 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 694.8 705.55239521 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 2.0 8.76447105788 23% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 19.7664670659 106% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.5736115783 57.8364921388 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 104.428571429 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0 23.324526521 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.09523809524 5.70786347227 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => 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: 0.171112873414 0.218282227539 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0546143628833 0.0743258471296 73% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0552771034486 0.0701772020484 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0983822497326 0.128457276422 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0473338916275 0.0628817314937 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.2 14.3799401198 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.3550499002 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.0 12.5979740519 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.97 8.32208582834 96% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 98.500998004 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.0 12.3882235529 65% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.