Argument129 自我感觉还不错 交流下

daidai_4UID: 2194147

ARGUMENT129

129.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."

   The author, based on a recent study,　recommends a "adopt-a-dog" programme in Sherwood Hospital cooperating with Sherwood Animal Shelter to reduce heart disease patients, by which, he also assumes, they can reduce the costs on these patients' ongoing treatment and reduce the general number of people catching heart disease.
   First of all, the recommendation is ungrounded for an unreliable study with vague information and lack of necessary data. The argument fails to indicate how the study was conducted and who did it. Is it conducted by the means of scientific research and systematic analysis by certain authoritative or trustworthy groups?  Since doubts should be cast on the reliability of the study, it can lend little support to the author’s suggestion.
   Second, the author confuses with several important concepts as "the incidence of heart disease", and "recovery". Even if the study is reliable, that is, owning a dog tend to reduce the incidence of heart disease, this will not necessary lead to a successful cure, in turn a declining number of those patients under treatment in the Sherwood Hospital, and further a decline in medical costs.
   In addition, the argument bases his suggestion on a groundless assumption that by this programme many people would be encouraged to adopt pets, or the pets from Sherwood Animal Shelter. After all, common sense and experiences tell me that there are those who are scared of dogs or don't like to stay with dogs in that they can make their house a mess. Perhaps many of the heart disease patients in this area are inclined to be far away from dogs. Even they would like to raise dogs, Sherwood Animal Shelter is not necessary the best choice to take a dog from. Perhaps they charge a higher payment for a dog, or the dog training there is not satisfactory. Unless the author succeed to rule out other better choices, the author’s recommended programme is not a sound one.
    Moreover, the author ignores some potential risks in adoption dogs. As we know, pets may take and spread bacteria, which may cause diseases in human beings, especially for those patients who are more easier to get infectious. If, by adopting dogs, people catch other kinds of diseases, the costs of medical treatment will grow other than decline.
   Overall, the argument is unsubstantiated for the incredibility of the basic study and confusion of certain concepts as well as some illogical reasoning. To assess this argument better, the author should offer additional information about the background of the study and lead anther survey as whether those heart disease patients would like to adopt dogs. What's more, the author should take some examination to make sure that dogs in this area do not take any bacteria of diseases.


请问一下：　"heart attack" 到底是心脏病突发还是没有这病的人突然得病啊？

诚请互拍：

https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mo ... d=421738&extra=

有拍回拍！

[ 本帖最后由 daidai_4 于 2006-3-7 21:22 编辑 ]

rose_wangyuanUID: 202907

今天没有时间改了,明天来!

rose_wangyuanUID: 202907

The author, based on a recent study,　recommends a "adopt-a-dog" programme in Sherwood Hospital cooperating with Sherwood Animal Shelter to reduce heart disease patients, by which, he also assumes, they can reduce the costs on these patients' ongoing treatment and reduce the general number of people catching heart disease.
   First of all, the recommendation is ungrounded for an unreliable study with vague information and lack of necessary data(这里AND并列的两个短语在结构上不平行). The argument fails to indicate how the study was conducted and who did it. Is it conducted by the means of scientific research and systematic analysis by certain authoritative or trustworthy groups?  Since doubts should（should？could？） be cast on the reliability of the study, it can lend little support to the author’s suggestion.
   Second, the author confuses with several important concepts as "the incidence of heart disease", and "recovery". Even if the study is reliable, that is, owning a dog tend to reduce the incidence of heart disease, this will not necessary lead to a successful cure, in turn a declining number of those patients under treatment in the Sherwood Hospital, and further a decline in medical costs.
   In addition, the argument（author） bases his（最好加/her，新东方老师说万一有男权或是女权的阅卷者） suggestion on a groundless assumption（在我看来author并没有假设，他只是recommend，说到那个Program也只是encourage people而已，并没有强迫，所以下面提到恐狗的人并不是那么persuasive，他们当然有自己的权利决定要不要养）  that by（according to） this programme many people would be encouraged to adopt pets, or the pets from Sherwood Animal Shelter. After all, common sense and experiences tell me that there are those who are scared of dogs or don't like to stay with dogs in that they can make their house a mess. Perhaps many of the heart disease patients in this area are inclined to be far away from dogs. Even they would like to raise dogs, Sherwood Animal Shelter is not necessary the best choice to take a dog from. Perhaps they charge a higher payment for a dog, or the dog training there is not satisfactory. Unless the author succeed to rule out other better choices, the author’s recommended programme is not a sound one.
    Moreover, the author ignores some potential risks in adoption dogs. As we know, pets may take and spread bacteria, which may cause diseases in human beings, especially for those patients who are more easier to get infectious. If, by adopting dogs, people catch other kinds of diseases, the costs of medical treatment will grow other than decline.
   Overall, the argument is unsubstantiated for the incredibility of the basic study and confusion of certain concepts as well as some illogical reasoning. To assess this argument better, the author should offer additional information about the background of the study and lead anther survey as whether those heart disease patients would like to adopt dogs. What's more, the author should take some examination to make sure that dogs in this area do not take any bacteria of diseases.

语言很不错，就是攻击点的顺序还要再考虑一下，最后一点提到医药费会下降的那个，前面第一段提到了，那为什么直接放到第二论证段承接下来讲呢？