The passage states that a culinary recipe is good for our heath becaus of certain nutrients within bones is beneficial to us and that there is anecdotal evidence. However, the argument is not sound because it is missing some information to substantiate it. To be specific, it should provide evidence about chondroitin and cartilage to corroborate the notions of the proposition or the opposition. Moreover, anecdotal evidence is not enough to prove that these recipies are truly efficient, and concluding that ancient humans possessed more knowledge than the contemporary humans are absurd.
First of all, there is not scientific proof that shows the effects of chondroitin or cartilage. If the passaged adduced experimental results from scientific papers, either the advocates or dissidents would have been cogent. However, neither sides presents evidence and thus there is the possibility of other conclusions such as cartilage rather than repleteing the substance in one's knees, could help alleviate the pain felt in the joints. Hence, more information about the relationship between theses substances and their effects are needed.
Next, the passage presents anecdotal evidence as proof that this diet is salubrious for people, which however, could be the result of exterior influences rather than the diet itself. For instance, people practicing this diet could usually be vegitarians and bone eating is their supplant way of protein intake. In this case, the propitious health conditions could have resulted from the vegetarian diet, not from the substances innate in the paleo diets. Consequently, for this aphorism to be accepted, there should be more information regarding that other than this special food intake, the people practicing this diet does not have any abnormalities, or scientific evidence regarding this issue.
Finally, the conclusion that the passage makes in the end is illogical. Even if cartilage and chondroitin is healthy to us, it does not mean that our ancestors were more informed about our physiology. This food could have been the result of extreme frugality: in our ancestors endeavor to eat anything that could be digested due to the desultory food sources. In addition, imitating them could not be helpful in curing inveterate disease because of the change in physiology from our ancient form. What could have been a good source of nutritions could have become a source of poison for our bodies.
In conclusion, the passage needs to provide additional proof to reinforce it's asseverations. It should provide scientific evidence about the substances that seem salubrious, and objective proof rather than a story to be coherent. Last but not least, it should elucidate on how it reached the conclusion that our ancestors had profound knowledge that contemporary humans doesn't.
The
passage
states that a culinary recipe is
good
for our heath
becaus
of certain nutrients within bones is beneficial to us and that there is anecdotal
evidence
.
However
, the argument is not sound
because
it is missing
some
information to substantiate it. To be specific, it should provide
evidence
about chondroitin and cartilage to corroborate the notions of the proposition or the opposition.
Moreover
, anecdotal
evidence
is not
enough
to prove that these
recipies
are
truly
efficient, and concluding that ancient humans possessed more knowledge than the contemporary humans are absurd.
First of all
, there is not
scientific
proof
that
shows
the effects of chondroitin or cartilage. If the
passaged
adduced experimental results from
scientific
papers, either the advocates or dissidents would have been cogent.
However
, neither sides presents
evidence
and
thus
there is the possibility of other
conclusions
such as cartilage
rather
than
repleteing
the
substance
in one's knees, could
help
alleviate the pain felt in the joints.
Hence
, more information about the relationship between
theses
substances
and their effects
are needed
.
Next
, the
passage
presents anecdotal
evidence
as
proof
that this diet is salubrious for
people
, which
however
, could be the result of exterior influences
rather
than the diet itself.
For instance
,
people
practicing this diet could
usually
be
vegitarians
and bone eating is their supplant way of protein intake.
In this case
, the propitious health conditions could have resulted from the vegetarian diet, not from the
substances
innate in the paleo diets.
Consequently
, for this aphorism to be
accepted
, there should be more information regarding that other than this special food intake, the
people
practicing this diet does not have any abnormalities, or
scientific
evidence
regarding this issue.
Finally
, the
conclusion
that the
passage
makes
in the
end
is illogical. Even if cartilage and chondroitin is healthy to us, it does not mean that our ancestors were more informed about our physiology. This food could have been the result of extreme frugality: in our ancestors endeavor to eat anything that could
be digested
due to the desultory food sources.
In addition
, imitating them could not be helpful in curing inveterate disease
because
of the
change
in physiology from our ancient form. What could have been a
good
source of
nutritions
could have become a source of poison for our bodies.
In
conclusion
, the
passage
needs to provide additional
proof
to reinforce it's asseverations
. It should provide
scientific
evidence
about the
substances
that seem salubrious, and objective
proof
rather
than a story to be coherent. Last
but
not least, it should elucidate on how it reached the
conclusion
that our ancestors had profound knowledge that contemporary humans doesn't.