Jump to content

Review My Argument Task Essay?


GreM
 Share

Recommended Posts

Argument: 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.

 

There are several stated and unstated assumption in the argument that concludes 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.

There is a lack of evidence and description in the argument. In the sentence, "there is strong anecdotal evidence that people who consume bone broth have fewer metabolic and inflammatory diseases than those who don't," "people" is a very vague term. When using the word "people," the argument does not make it clear of the people's age, gender, medical history, or health before starting the paleo diet. Without providing a more specific description of "people," it is unclear if the paleo diet is what is causing fewer metabolic and inflammatory diseases, or if there are other causes. Perhaps some of these "people" were very young and healthy, with no family history or stress in their lives, so they did not have chronic illnesses.

Another assumption stated is that ancient humans knew something about our physiology that we don't because they were eating this paleo diet. However, this assumption does not consider that ancient humans were just eating what they could hunt, fish, or harvest close to them. Perhaps their paleo diet was created out of convenience rather than knowing the paleo diet had healthy-promoting nutrients that supported their physiology. To make this argument stronger, we would need to see if bodies of the human ancestors had stronger bones or perhaps lived longer to even show that their paleo diet had a positive effect in limiting or eliminting chronic illnesses entireley.

Even by providing this proof, there could be several other factors that would impact the strength and health of our human ancestors. Another assumption that is made in the argument for instance is that food in our ancient ancestors time is the same food that we eat today. The argument also never includes a time period the human ancestors lived in, so it is hard to make this comparison. As the author mentions, our bodies evolve. An assumption made is our bodies evolved over the years, but the food benefits remained the same. What needs to be considered is that our food today is not as pure as it was back in the time of our human ancestors. Unless these "people" are harvesting, fishing, hunting, and cooking their own food, the food will not be the same as it was in the time of our human ancestors. Even if today "people' are buying food at the grocery food as organic and paleo friendly as possible, there is still always a possibility that hormones found in farms could affect the food or even the time it takes for the food to make it to the store and to your plate, changes could happen. It is not the same food as it was in the human ancestors time.

Overall, there are several stated assumptions the argument depends on that would need additional evidence, support, and consideration in order for the implications to be warranted.

Edited by GreM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

A really good essay, tackles the issue head on, provides some really good points. I feel the introduction and conclusion could have been written better. This is easily a 4.5 essay, maybe a 5. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.