Argument129 G-89－互助社

tianrushuiUID：207550

Argument129 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.'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this argument, the arguer recommends that Sherwood Hospital should institute an “adopt-a-dog” program with Sherwood Animal Shelter to help reduce medical costs. Meanwhile, the arguer assumes that this program will encourage more people to adopt pets from the shelter, which will reduce the risk of heart disease in the general population. In support the argument, the arguer cites a recent study which showed that pet owners have longer, healthier lives on average than do people who own no pets, especially dog owners. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

To begin with, the author assumes a causal relationship between pet ownership and longer, healthier lives when only a correlation has been indicated. The arguer gives no information about the study, how many people involved in, how the study conducted, how long did the study last. In the absence of such information, the result of the study is dubious. Granted that the study is believable, there is nothing to support that longer and healthier lives cause by pet ownership. It is fairly possible that those pet owners are richer . It is equally possible that pet owners have less pressure from work and life.

Moreover, even the dog ownership really leads to a low incidence of heart disease, it is presumptuous to assume that it will help reduce medical costs by reducing the number of these patients need ongoing treatment. It is possible that the dog ownership helps prevent the heart disease, however to prevent a disease is one thing , to cure it is another thing. Additionally, It is quite impossible that some heart disease patients are allergic to dogs. Then it is obvious that dog ownership will by the contrary deteriorate the state of the patients’ illness.

Finally, it is still open to doubt whether the recommended program could encourage general people to adopt dogs or pets from the Shelter. Perhaps general people prefer regular diet and rest to prevent heart disease. Or perhaps most general people are not rich enough to own a pet. There is also a possibility that the service in Shelter is not good so that even people want to own a pet would not choose Shelter.

In conclusion, the author fails to establish a causal relationship between pet ownership and longer, healthier lives. And at the same time the arguer gives no evidence that dog ownership will help cure heart disease. Finally the assumption that the program will encourage more people to adopt pets from Shelter is groundless groundless. To strengthen the argument, the arguer should give evidence that pet ownership results in healthier lives and dogs will help cure heart disease. To further evaluate the argument, the author should convince that the program will really encourage more people to adopt pets from the Shelter.

plutoplutoUID：2116389

占座,明天早上发上来,别急
有手快的可以先改啊

plutoplutoUID：2116389

In this argument, the arguer recommends that Sherwood Hospital should institute an “adopt-a-dog” program with Sherwood Animal Shelter to help reduce medical costs. Meanwhile, the arguer assumes that this program will encourage more people to adopt pets from the shelter, which will reduce the risk of heart disease in the general population. In support the argument, the arguer cites a recent study which showed that pet owners have longer, healthier lives on average than do people who own no pets, especially dog owners. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies.好长的开头

To begin with, the author assumes a causal relationship between pet ownership and longer, healthier lives when only a correlation has been indicated. The arguer gives no information about the study, how many people involved in, how the study conducted, how long did the study last. 最好说the number, the procedure等，用how似乎不大好 In the absence of such information, the result of the study is dubious. Granted that the study is believable, there is nothing to support that longer and healthier lives cause by pet ownership. It is fairly possible that those pet owners are richer. 这个与本文无关吧 It is equally possible that pet owners have less pressure from work and life. 还有应该重点说说养狗和心脏病降低之间没有因果关系吧。

Moreover, even the dog ownership really leads to a low incidence of heart disease, it is presumptuous to assume that it will help reduce medical costs by reducing the number of these patients need ongoing treatment. It is possible that the dog ownership helps prevent the heart disease, however to prevent a disease is one thing, to cure it is another thing. 这句与这段不贴切 Additionally, It is quite impossible反了吧 that some heart disease patients are allergic to dogs. Then it is obvious that dog ownership will by the contrary deteriorate the state of the patients’ illness.

Finally, it is still open to doubt whether the recommended program could encourage general people to adopt dogs or pets from the Shelter. Perhaps general people prefer regular diet and rest to prevent heart disease. Or perhaps most general people are not rich enough to own a pet. There is also a possibility that the service in Shelter is not good so that even people want to own a pet would not choose Shelter.说了好多可能性，有些杂。还有最好本段最后来个总结在强调一下本段的TS

In conclusion, the author fails to establish a causal relationship between pet ownership and longer, healthier lives. And at the same time the arguer gives no evidence that dog ownership will help cure heart disease. Finally the assumption that the program will encourage more people to adopt pets from Shelter is groundless. To strengthen the argument, the arguer should give evidence that pet ownership results in healthier lives and dogs will help cure heart disease. To further evaluate the argument, the author should convince that the program will really encourage more people to adopt pets from the Shelter
说的很全面啊，但开头结尾都不够简洁，不知道30分钟能打完否？还有就是语言上还需提炼，不断修改不断完善吧。

tianrushuiUID：207550

Originally posted by plutopluto at 2005-8-11 10:10
Granted that the study is believable, there is nothing to support that longer and healthier lives cause by pet ownership. It is fairly possible that those pet owners are richer. 这个与本文无关吧

这个是我自己没写清楚，本来是想写说，因为rich所以可以花更多的钱在身体健康上，没写清楚，呵呵。

还有应该重点说说养狗和心脏病降低之间没有因果关系吧。

这个是和第二段在一块写好呢，还是分开好，感觉写在一块感觉有些乱

however to prevent a disease is one thing, to cure it is another thing. 这句与这段不贴切

这个是我理解文章有些偏差，呵呵，现在明白了。

谢谢你了啊，:)我写的时候就感觉自己特罗嗦呢，语言自己都觉得挺别扭的:L