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 human diet has evolved a lot from prehistoric to modern times. The author of the prompt assumes that early humans (prehistoric) had knowledge about foods that make us healthier and less prone to diseases. The author also supplies anecdotal evidence to prove his or her point.
It has been pointed out by many skeptics that other than strong anecdotal pieces of evidence, we have no research to prove that paleo diets are if in fact actually healthier. Many people following the paleo diet claim that drinking bone broth has many healthy nutrients such as cartilage which heals human joints and promotes nerve regeneration. Still, they have nothing more than anecdotal evidence to prove their point. As long as we don't have proper medical research in people that follow this diet, we have to remain skeptic.
The author of the prompt also states that due to the above fact, the ancient prehistoric human knew more about human physiology than modern medicine which is a hard pill to swallow. Moreover, there is no medical research done on whether this diet can cure chronic illnesses. Also, it is assumed that by following what the hominids ate we could remain healthier. But this gives rise to a grave problem. Modern science has proved that the approximate age up to which hominids lived was about 40-50 years while the modern man has a life span of about 60-70 years. So if the ancient humans knew more about the human physiology than the modern man, then why did they have a higher rate of mortality. Also what if these prehistoric humans just ate bone broth as a convenient dinner than as a way to stay healthy. We have to remember here that prehistoric man was yet to discover agriculture as a way to conveniently grow food.
By examing the assumptions made in the argument and on noticing the fact that there is no hard evidence to support their claims we can say that prehistoric humans most likely ate bone broth as a convenient supper rather than due to its medical properties.
| 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 |
- Technology while apparently aimed to simplify our lives only makes our lives more complicated 50
- Science and technology will one day be able to solve all of society’s problems. 50
- Understanding the past is of little use to those in current positions of leadership. 83
- Although sound moral judgment is an important characteristic of an effective leader, it is not as important as a leader’s ability to maintain the respect of his or her peers. 50
- Those who see their ideas through, regardless of doubts or criticism others may express, are the ones who tend to leave a lasting legacy. 83
Comments
Essay evaluation 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: 16 15
No. of Words: 347 350
No. of Characters: 1616 1500
No. of Different Words: 179 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.316 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.657 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.394 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 101 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 70 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 50 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 29 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.688 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.299 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.688 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.34 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.516 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.167 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 4 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 208, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...s healthier and less prone to diseases. The author also supplies anecdotal evidence...
^^^
Line 5, column 437, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...nce to prove their point. As long as we dont have proper medical research in people ...
^^^^
Line 9, column 696, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...d they have a higher rate of mortality. Also what if these prehistoric humans just a...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, if, moreover, so, still, then, while, in fact, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 8.0 19.6327345309 41% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 12.9520958084 23% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 28.8173652695 111% => OK
Preposition: 38.0 55.5748502994 68% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 16.3942115768 43% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1657.0 2260.96107784 73% => OK
No of words: 346.0 441.139720559 78% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.78901734104 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31289638616 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.45600977784 2.78398813304 88% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 204.123752495 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.514450867052 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 516.6 705.55239521 73% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 4.96107784431 121% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => 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: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.2839900322 57.8364921388 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 103.5625 119.503703932 87% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.625 23.324526521 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.6875 5.70786347227 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 5.15768463074 78% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 8.20758483034 37% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 6.88822355289 73% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.132801759149 0.218282227539 61% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0457592927545 0.0743258471296 62% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.041966829326 0.0701772020484 60% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0855108915646 0.128457276422 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0137014390671 0.0628817314937 22% => 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: 11.9 14.3799401198 83% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 58.62 48.3550499002 121% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.5 12.5979740519 83% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.37 8.32208582834 89% => OK
difficult_words: 59.0 98.500998004 60% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.