camcin21

Prompt: 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. Directions: 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. Essay: The following argument is flawed for numerous reasons. The holes in this argument primarily stem from the failure to address that the physiology of humans today is different than that of our ancestors and ingesting cartilage in the 21st century may not be responsible for the reduction in metabolic and inflammatory diseases. The first reason why this argument is flawed stems from the fact that it is making the assumption that the organ systems of humans today operate the same way physiologically as the organ systems of our ancestors. Although our ancestors evolved to eat foods such as bone broth, since then, our bodies have become much more advanced and it is likely that they have evolved to ingest more beneficial types of food. Furthermore, this could indicate that our bodies have actually lost the ability to digest bone broth over time as the skill became less useful and less adaptable to the changing environment. Therefore, the argument would have to include evidence as to the similarity of physiology between our ancestors and modern day people in order to substantiate the claim that the nutrients will be broken down and utilized in the same manner. An additional reason why this argument is unsubstantiated stems from the assumption of cause and effect. The argument uses anecdotal evidence to make the claim that people who consume bone broth have fewer metabolic and inflammatory diseases. This claim has no evidence to support the cause and effect nature. In fact, skeptics have actually pointed out that ingested cartilage should have no added health benefits. Therefore, it is possible that this relationship is purely correlational. It is possible that those in the modern day who ingest bone broth have fewer diseases because of their overall healthier lifestyle. For example, someone who cares enough about their health to read up on the benefits of bone broth and implement the changes in their life is likely to be a more active person who goes to the gym. Therefore, the fewer incidences of disease could be linked more to lifestyle than the pure ingestion of bone broth. Therefore, to strengthen the anecdotal argument, the proponents would have to include some sort of study to prove a cause and effect relationship. Finally, this argument also utilizes vague language which diminishes the strength. For example, the argument makes the assumption that ingesting bone broth has the capability to "cure many chronic illnessess." This is extremely vague because it does not detail the mechanism through which it will cure them nor does it specify exactly what type of chronic illnessess. Additionally, the argument addresses that ancient humans knew "something about our physiology." This is a huge assumption based on very vague language as it does not detail exactly what they could have known or how they could have known it without advanced technology. This argument would have to utilize much more specific language and examples to be effective. In conclusion, this argument relies on the assumptions that human physiology has remained the same since ancient times and that the consumption of bone broth is the cause of an increase in health. Since these assumptions are unsupported and vaguely stated, the argument fails to present cohesive points in favor of the consumption of bone broth.

Prompt: 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. Directions:Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position. Essay: A successful leader needs to express a multitude of important characteristics. Two of these characteristics are good moral judgment and the ability to hold the respect of peers. It is more important that a leader maintains respect from his peers over possessing strong moral judgment because having respect increases the effectiveness of the leader and their actions while in power. Maintaining the respect of peers allows a leader to inact productive measures. When a leader is highly regarded in the eyes of the public, people are more likely to trust and throw public support behind their decisions. For example, if the leader of a high school math club inacted the decision to expand the club to include gifted 8th graders, his decision would be supported and trusted more by his peers if he already has a foundation of respect. This decision has little to do with moral judgment and a lot to do with the respected decision making process of the leader. If respect were to be absent, his peers may counter this idea and prevent the inclusion. Therefore, respect from peers is essential for productive actions and change from a leader. Additionally, maintaining respect as a leader is important to keeping the position as leader and preventing civil unrest. Leadership should be built on a solid foundation that is trusted by the constituents. If the constituents do not respect who is in charge, then there is the chance for rebellion against the leadership and the leader would loss their position. For example, if the leader of the math club posted on his social media about how much he hated math, then his return to school on the Monday would likely be met by extreme scrutiny from his peers. This loss of respect would likely lead to his downfall as the leader of the team and the decision to include gifted 8th graders would never go forward. Therefore, respect remains a critical aspect of keeping ones leadership position and preventing rebellion. However, there are situations in which sound moral judgment can be more important than maintaining respect. For example, as a powerful leader, such as the President of the United States, it is important to resist temptations of corruption and instead follow sound moral judgment to make smart, empathetic decisions for the public. Making decisions based on a solid foundation of moral judgment is crucial for social change even though it may cause the loss of respect in certain populations. For example, when President Obama ruled gay marriage legal in the United States, he was making this decision partly based on his moral judgment as a leader. Although this decision lead to the loss of respect in the more conservative populations, the moral soundness that he expressed through this judgment was extremely beneficial for society. Therefore, it was more important in this circumstance that the leader expressed moral soundness over caring about the respect of his peers. In conclusion, maintaining respect as a leader is often more important than having sound moral judgment because the actions and decisions of the leader can be more productive and successful with the respect of peers. What the leader lacks in moral judgment can often be made up by the willingness of his peers to help form and support the leader's decisions.