The argument states that the recent gain in popularity of Paleo diets is a result of its ability to cure several chronic diseases. The author suggests so, on the basis of the strong metabolic and inflammatory system of our ancestors. However, before this suggestion is properly evaluated, three assumptions must be clarified.
Firstly, the author attributes the fact that the people who consume bone broth are healthier only to the consumption of the broth. In other words, people with chronic diseases are affected since they do not consume any bone broth. It is possible that the lifestyle and health profiles of these two segments of people are completely different. Further, it can also be true that people are affected by chronic diseases as a pure result of their genetics, and that it has no relation whatsoever with bone marrow consumption. If either of these cases has any merit, then the suggestion does not hold water.
Secondly, it is assumed that the consumption of animal bone marrow is appropriate and healthy for humans. Without any solid proof, this sweeping assumption can pose several health hazards. In fact, it is possible that cooking animal bones for several hours changes the composition and biological sequence of the constituents, which perhaps may be fatal. Additionally, it may also be the case that the human digestion system is not well- adapted to digest the complex proteins present in animal cartilage and chondroitin. In either of the above- stated scenarios, the author's suggestion will not hold true and will in fact, be dangerous.
Lastly, even if the assumption of attributing ancient humans' superior health solely to their diet is true, this does not guarantee this will be the case in today's world. In short, the author implies the conditions in the ancient world, are the same as they are today. For that matter, chronic diseases today may be caused more due to the hectic lifestyle of people. Additionally, the quality of air, water and produce consumed in today's world may significantly differ and this might majorly contribute to the occurrence of these diseases. In that case, the author's suggestion is significantly weakened.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now is considerably flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to clarify the above stated assumptions, possibly in the form of a systematic and detailed research study, then it will be possible to entirely evaluate the viability of the recommendation of mirroring ancient eating patterns to combat diseases.
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 1 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 5 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 418 350
No. of Characters: 2099 1500
No. of Different Words: 200 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.522 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.022 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.739 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 161 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 119 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 85 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 50 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.9 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.641 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.8 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.293 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.523 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.046 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 568, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...her of the above- stated scenarios, the authors suggestion will not hold true and will ...
^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 558, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...ce of these diseases. In that case, the authors suggestion is significantly weakened. ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, then, well, in conclusion, in fact, in short, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.6327345309 127% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.9520958084 93% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 13.6137724551 88% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 28.8173652695 115% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 55.5748502994 94% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 16.3942115768 110% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2160.0 2260.96107784 96% => OK
No of words: 418.0 441.139720559 95% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.16746411483 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.52162009685 4.56307096286 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83392972947 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 211.0 204.123752495 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.504784688995 0.468620217663 108% => OK
syllable_count: 676.8 705.55239521 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.22255489022 213% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 46.1658965038 57.8364921388 80% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.0 119.503703932 90% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.9 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.75 5.70786347227 118% => 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 : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => 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: 0.153986288354 0.218282227539 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0462300166187 0.0743258471296 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0453205309841 0.0701772020484 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0802152511119 0.128457276422 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0395722267809 0.0628817314937 63% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.4 14.3799401198 93% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.71 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.09 8.32208582834 109% => OK
difficult_words: 118.0 98.500998004 120% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.