Jump to content
Urch Forums

I Would Appreciate Feedback on my AWA argument task Essay!


Recommended Posts

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.



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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...