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 author's implication that ancient humans knew about our physiology we don't and by emulating their eating habits, we can cure many chronic illnesses, predicated on flawed assumptions and insufficiently supported. To properly evaluate author's remarks on his observation, we require more evidences.
The author begins with mentioning that paleo diets are becoming increasingly popular and a diet such as bone broth, a soup made by cooking animals bone has several advantages. However, these proponents do not mention what animals can provide the bone soup, and what kind of diet they followed is also not mentioned. Did our early ancestors prevalently depend only on flesh, carnivore diet? There is no such evidence as to what diet was followed. If there are sufficient proof's with valid scientific data regarding the early hominids eating pattern with their bodily structure enabling them to digest such foods, it can corroborate author's assumptions that our bodies also evolved to eat such type of foods.
Moreover, they also believe the bone broth has health promoting nutrients, cartilage and chondroitin, which acts in bones and nerves respectively. However, with out sufficient information on the chemical compound structure of both and scientific proof's that they heal joints or help regenerate nerves, we cannot evaluate the argument. Adding to that, skeptics also point that the ingested cartilage and chrondoitin doesn't replenish cartilage and brains significantly discourages believing such theories. Therefore, with scientific validity on the comment, we can evaluate the argument properly.
Additionally, the author also states that there is strong evidence that people who consume bone broth have fewer metabolic and inflammatory diseases. Although, the author fails to mention what number of people consumed bone broth, what was the demographics tested. Perhaps, the inflammatory diseases could also be lowered because they had medications and which eventually showed its effect at the time they were consuming bone broth. Without having proper supportive statements and insufficent authentic assumptions, the author's argument that this diet has significant positive effects to cure diseases, cannot be properly evaluated.
Hence, the author's remark rests on flawed assumptions regarding the ancient diet followed by people curing chronic illnesses. The author doesn't provide valuable statements to support his argument which is inefficient without proper evidences. Therefore, with the questions addressed and the evidences provided for the discussions in the previous paragraph, the argument can be properly evaluated.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 10 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 8 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 394 350
No. of Characters: 2205 1500
No. of Different Words: 212 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.455 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.596 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.807 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 180 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 143 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 112 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 71 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.889 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.688 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.329 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.569 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.115 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 5, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
The authors implication that ancient humans knew ab...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 74, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...ent humans knew about our physiology we dont and by emulating their eating habits, w...
^^^^
Line 5, column 157, Rule ID: WITH_OUT[1]
Message: This word is usually written together. Did you mean 'without'?
Suggestion: without
...bones and nerves respectively. However, with out sufficient information on the chemical ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 416, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
... the ingested cartilage and chrondoitin doesnt replenish cartilage and brains signific...
^^^^^^
Line 7, column 522, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... insufficent authentic assumptions, the authors argument that this diet has significant...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 138, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...le curing chronic illnesses. The author doesnt provide valuable statements to support ...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, hence, however, if, moreover, regarding, so, then, therefore, as to, kind of, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.6327345309 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 8.0 12.9520958084 62% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 36.0 55.5748502994 65% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2257.0 2260.96107784 100% => OK
No of words: 391.0 441.139720559 89% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.77237851662 5.12650576532 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.44676510885 4.56307096286 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.87541971541 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 222.0 204.123752495 109% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.567774936061 0.468620217663 121% => OK
syllable_count: 693.0 705.55239521 98% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59920159681 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.1507092984 57.8364921388 88% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.388888889 119.503703932 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.7222222222 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.05555555556 5.70786347227 89% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 6.0 5.25449101796 114% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => 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: 0.271878736245 0.218282227539 125% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0811665435963 0.0743258471296 109% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0901940807656 0.0701772020484 129% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.130435049041 0.128457276422 102% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.120354042886 0.0628817314937 191% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.6 14.3799401198 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.24 48.3550499002 69% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.19 12.5979740519 129% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.6 8.32208582834 115% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 98.500998004 124% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 12.3882235529 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 17.0 11.9071856287 143% => 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.