Tainysha Acevedo

Greetings! I was wondering if anybody would like to critique my issue and argument essays. Thanks in advance. Argument Task- 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. Essay: The argument is flawed for numerous reasons. First, not because a paleo diet worked for our early human ancestors does it mean that it will work for us. There are various differences between humans and our ancestors. There are differences in our anatomy, our lifestyles, and ecosystems. Anatomically, differences in body size and metabolism may require changes in our diets. Keep in mind that our early ancesters dependent on hunting as a necessary task for surviving. Thus, the intake of large amounts of red meat was supported by their active lifestyle. Advances in technology and science have paved the way for a sedentary life. Eating as the hominids did could be detrimental to our society. Furthermore, there are illnessess in our present day that did not exist before. Adapting our diets to one used in times where these illnesses were nonexistant is irresponsible. Therefore, to assume that our dietary needs are the same as that of hominids is an unwarranted assumption. Second, the author mentiones that there is strong anectodal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is simply not reliable. To base an argument on anecdotes makes the argument carry no weight. If, on the other hand, the author were to present empirical data that suggests that those who consume bone broth have fewer metabolic and inflammatory diseases than those who do not, then his argument would be supported. Third, there is now evidence to suggest how would emulating hominid's diets would cure chronic illnesses. Consider that our early ancestors did not have a high life expectancy, especially when compared to the life expectancy of present generations. Also, have in mind that chronic illnesses is an effect of prolonged life expectancy. In what way would hominid's diets cure chronic illnesses if hominid's themselves were unlikely to suffer from these. In conclusion, the argument is flawed because it based on unwarranted assumptions . The fact that a paleo diet worked for our ancestors does not mean it will work on present days. The author uses anecdotal evidence, which is not empirical. Issue Task- Science and technology will one day be able to solve all of society’s problems. Essay: To say that science and technology will one day be able to solve all of society's problems is incorrect. Let's analyze this issue using the prolonging of life expectancy as an example. Science and technology may well be able to prolong life. In fact, we are already experiencing the effects of an increase in life expectancy. As more humans are now reaching old age, we now see higher incidences of chronic illness. This opens up more problems, such as figuring out new treatments for these ailments. If science and technology allows us to prolong life even longer, more chronic illnesses will develop, thus creating a plethora of new problems. An increase in life expectancy is accompanied by an increase in the human population. More people means more mouths to feed. At what cost would science and technology be able to compensate for the increased food demands? In order to produce higher amounts of food, the quality of the food would be affected. Space dedicated for agriculture is a finite resource. Therefore, if companies reach the limit on space, the only solution would be find ways to speed the production process. These modifications would likely come in genetic modification to our food. This, in turn, would affect the quality of the food. Although technology and science may well be suited to solve many of society's problems, it does not come without opening a window to many other complications.