argument129 G-89-互助社-9日同主题写作 补交 第一篇, 还有5天上刑场帮忙啊

niuniu1983UID: 2117413

Argument129额外题库 第1篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：40分37秒    472 words
------题目------
The following appeared in the Sherwood Times newspaper.
'A recent study reported that pet owners have longer, healthier lives on average than do people who own no pets. Specifically, dog owners tend to have a lower incidence of heart disease. In light of these findings, Sherwood Hospital should form a partnership with Sherwood Animal Shelter to institute an 'adopt-a-dog' program. The program would encourage dog ownership for patients recovering from heart disease, which will help reduce medical costs by reducing the number of these patients needing ongoing treatment. In addition, the publicity about the program will encourage more people to adopt pets from the shelter, which will reduce the risk of heart disease in the general population.'
------正文------
In this argument ,the arguer recommends that Sherwood Hospital should form a partnership with Sherwood Animal Shelter to institute an 'adopt-a-dog' program and people should adopt pets from the shelter. To justify the claim , the arguer provide the evidence that pet owners have longer, healthier lives on average according to a recent study. In addition , the arguer assumes that people owning a pet will reduce the risk of heart disease.

To begin with, the survey must be shown to be reliable before the arguer can draw any conclusion based upon it. Specially, the responses must be accurate, and the responses must be statistically significant number and representative of the overall. Without knowing how the survey was conducted, it is impossible to access whether or not this is the case.

In the second place, even if the study is accurate which we can depend on, this argument still assumes that a lower incidence of heart disease indicate that people who adopts dogs is much more healthy than others. However, it is not the necessary the case. Maybe it is entirely possible that dog owners suffer any other disease such as fracture, cancer and so forth. Or perhaps the healthy level of people who adopt other pet except for dogs are lower than national average. If so , then the author's recommendation might amount to poor advice for people.

Furthermore, even if it is granted that dog owners become much more healthy than other people, the arguer also commit a fallacy "causal oversimplification" assuming that establish a relationship with Sherwood Animal Shelter to institute an 'adopt-a-dog' program is the cause of decrease medical costs by reducing the number of these patients needing ongoing treatment. However, the author provides no evidence whatsoever to substantiate this assumption. It is possible that reducing the number of these people will cost the hospital much more money cure costly patient. Without considering other factors that contribute to medical cost , the arguer can not justify its recommendation.

Finally, the report fails to establish a causal connection between the formation of the program and the trend that people will become interested in adopting pets. Perhaps the mere fact that decrease in the risk of heart disease will not encourage more people to adopt pets, for the reason that the decrease compared to before may be just only 1%, which is too low to draw people 's attention to.

In conclusion, the fails to validate the recommendation that  Sherwood Hospital should establish a partnership with Sherwood Animal Shelter. To solidify the argument, the author should demonstrate that credit of the study. In addition, the arguer would have to provide more concrete evidence, especially the information concerning cause between formation and decrease in medical cost, and so on, to rule out the abovementioned possibility that would undermine the author’s claim.

tuesday420UID: 202475

我也写了，晚上来看！

niuniu1983UID: 2117413

tianrushuiUID: 207550

In this argument ,the arguer recommends that Sherwood Hospital should form a partnership with Sherwood Animal Shelter to institute an 'adopt-a-dog' program and people should adopt pets from the shelter. To justify the claim , the arguer provide(s) the evidence that pet owners have longer, healthier lives on average according to a recent study. In addition , the arguer assumes that people owning a pet will reduce the risk of heart disease.

To begin with, the survey must be shown to be reliable before the arguer can draw any conclusion based upon it. Specially, the responses must be accurate, and the responses must be statistically significant number and representative of the overall. Without knowing how the survey was conducted, it is impossible to access whether or not this is the case.

In the second place, even if the study is accurate which we can depend on, this argument still assumes that a lower incidence of heart disease indicate that people who adopts dogs is much more healthy(healthier) than others. However, it is not the(多余) necessary the case. Maybe(有了possi le应该没必要再用maybe了) it is entirely possible that dog owners suffer(from) any other disease such as fracture, cancer and so forth. Or perhaps the healthy level of people who adopt other pet except for dogs are lower than national average.(这句话好象不太切这段的意思) If so , then the author's recommendation might amount to poor advice for people.

Furthermore, even if it is granted that dog owners become much more healthy(healthier) than other people, the arguer also commit a fallacy "causal oversimplification" assuming that establish a relationship with Sherwood Animal Shelter to institute an 'adopt-a-dog' program is the cause of decrease medical costs by reducing the number of these patients needing ongoing treatment. However, the author provides no evidence whatsoever to substantiate this assumption. It is possible that reducing the number of these people will cost the hospital much more money cure costly patient(s).这一句话我感觉有点问题啊,为什么减少了heart disease 的数量会导致医院要花更多的钱在治愈costly patients上啊,不知道是不是我的理解有问题 Without considering other factors that contribute to medical cost , the arguer can not justify its recommendation.

Finally, the report fails to establish a causal connection between the formation of the program and the trend that people will become interested in adopting pets. Perhaps the mere fact that decrease in the risk of heart disease will not encourage more people to adopt pets, for the reason that the decrease compared to before may be just only 1%, which is too low to draw people 's attention to.

In conclusion, the (arguer) fails to validate the recommendation that  Sherwood Hospital should establish a partnership with Sherwood Animal Shelter. To solidify the argument, the author should demonstrate that credit of the study. In addition, the arguer would have to provide more concrete evidence, especially the information concerning cause between formation and decrease in medical cost, and so on, to rule out the abovementioned possibility that would undermine the author’s claim.
我也写了这片,帮我去看下吧:)
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=315264

tuesday420UID: 202475

1．第一段没有表明立场呢？
2.有的点说的不是很好。比如关于调查的点可以再多说点破绽，降低费用的点没有说清楚

tuesday420UID: 202475

帮我拍拍 :D
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=315562

niuniu1983UID: 2117413