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.
In the passage, the author maintains that because diets that emulate the diets of human ancestors have been proven to have many health benefits, ancient humans had knowledge about human physiology that present-day humans do not and emulating these early human diets can cure chronic illnesses. However, the author relies on multiple assumptions to validate their argument.
First, the author states that many proponents of Paleo diets especially praise consuming bone broth because they believe it is rich in cartilage and chondroitin, however, they do not provide evidence to support that bone broth has more cartilage and chondroitin than modern foods consisting of similar ingredients. Thus, the author assumes that modern foods do not have the stated health benefits of a paleo diet and uses this assumption to fuel the claim that ancient humans had knowledge of human physiology that has not been discovered by present-day humans.
Furthermore, the argument that human ancestors had knowledge about human physiology and these health benefits also relies upon the assumption that human ancestors readily consumed bone broth for its specific physiological benefits which the author does not provide. Thus, the author is unable to support the argument that the human ancestors' knowledge of human physiology is what drove their dietary habits and thus, have superior knowledge of physiology to present-day humans.
Moreover, the author states that there is anecdotal evidence that there are fewer occurrences of metabolic and inflammatory diseases in people who consume bone broth. However, the author does not state a sample size or a method of study for this anecdotal evidence and thus, it cannot be considered as reliable information. In addition, the author states this evidence as a rebuttal to the claim that ingested cartilage and chondroitin does not benefit human joints or brains. However, the author makes a faulty comparison as they compare the occurrences of metabolic and inflammatory diseases to joint and brain health. Moreover, this anecdotal evidence assumes bone broth was directly responsible for lower rates of metabolic and inflammatory diseases— without being able to pinpoint bone broth as the causative agent— the author's argument is not supported.
In essence, the author of the passage makes the claim that Paleo diets are the key to curing chronic illnesses because ancient humans had knowledge about human physiology that present-day humans do not have. In making this argument, however, the author assumes that human ancestors readily consumed certain foods, such as bone broth, with the knowledge of its benefits on human bodies. Furthermore, the author makes faulty comparisons and provides evidence that cannot be clearly substantiated. Thus, we cannot completely accept the implications of this passage based on the information provided.
| 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 |
Comments
Essay evaluation report
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: 15 15
No. of Words: 443 350
No. of Characters: 2388 1500
No. of Different Words: 171 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.588 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.391 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.658 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 188 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 138 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 102 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 66 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 29.533 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.966 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.867 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.426 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.634 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.133 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 333, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'ancestors'' or 'ancestor's'?
Suggestion: ancestors'; ancestor's
... to support the argument that the human ancestors knowledge of human physiology is what d...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 826, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... bone broth as the causative agent— the authors argument is not supported. In esse...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, moreover, so, thus, in addition, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 12.9520958084 31% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 11.1786427146 134% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 13.6137724551 147% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 28.8173652695 125% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 40.0 55.5748502994 72% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 16.3942115768 104% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2452.0 2260.96107784 108% => OK
No of words: 443.0 441.139720559 100% => OK
Chars per words: 5.53498871332 5.12650576532 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.58776254615 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.73951179334 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 182.0 204.123752495 89% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.410835214447 0.468620217663 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 771.3 705.55239521 109% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => 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: 29.0 22.8473053892 127% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 68.7592902814 57.8364921388 119% => OK
Chars per sentence: 163.466666667 119.503703932 137% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.5333333333 23.324526521 127% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.6 5.70786347227 98% => 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 : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.67664670659 64% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.169443895536 0.218282227539 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0679413386928 0.0743258471296 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0544338243733 0.0701772020484 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.115556054527 0.128457276422 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0322669341366 0.0628817314937 51% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.4 14.3799401198 135% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 33.58 48.3550499002 69% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 12.197005988 130% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.39 12.5979740519 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.67 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 98.500998004 103% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 18.0 12.3882235529 145% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 11.1389221557 122% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.9071856287 134% => 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.