Argument129 G-89-互助社-8.9日同主题作文！请猛拍！

tuesday420UID：202475

129The 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.'

1. report没有给出足够的信息，研究人数，年龄，健康情况
2. 养宠物的人比不养的人有可能有更好的生活条件，因此得到更好的医疗
3. 养宠物不一定能减少医疗花销，即使心脏病少了，别的病害有可能得，尤其是宠物带来的。

In this memo, the author asserts that pet owners have longer and healthier live than those own no pets. He recommends the hospital should encourage patients to have a pet. The argument is well-reasoned at the first glance, but not well-grounded after a further reflection. The author fails to recognize all the elements necessary to evaluate the recommendation, thus makes his argument suffer from several fallacies which will be illustrated below.

To begin with, the author establishes his argument on a vague study report which itself is problematic. Author does not provide accurate data about the age, sex, health condition and so forth of study target and the target amount, by which the study result will be influenced. If there are only few of study target such as 10 or 20, the study result will have great possibility to come from haphazard. It is also possible the pet owners are all health before they own a dog, then their dogs contribute nothing to their longevity. Moreover, we can not exclude the possibility that they make good exercises everyday which contribute a lot to their health rather than dogs. As justifiable evidence, all of the forgoing points should be taken into consideration but they totally have been neglected by the author. For this matter, the less valuable of the report is, the less justifiable the author rely his argument that pet owners have longer lives on it.

Even one can accept the report result that pet owners have longer and healthier lives, the argument still remains questionable. It is possible that the pet owners are healthier than those without pets. There are many reasons to explain it besides pets. Maybe they are in better economic condition so they are certainly able to receive better medical care. Those who even worry about the cost of medicine are not capable to own a pet.  It is common sense that people who can take good care of the pets surely will take good care of themselves. Thus, it is justifiable the former will have a better chance to have longer and healthier lives.

Even one can accept the author recommendations to own a pet, nevertheless, the medical cost will not be certainly reduced. Although the study report simply said dog owners tend to have a lower incidence of heart disease, the possibility of other disease are not mentioned. It is justifiable to assume the higher incidences of other diseases will be conduced by the pets, since the pets are always contain certain virus which will contaminate the people especially the people of old age with lower immunity. Thus, the cost of heart disease may be reduced, which, however, may not compensate the cost for other diseases. The medical cost actually is raised up.

To conclude, the author does not provide any grounded evidence to bolster his claim but several baseless assumptions and vague evidence. To lend the credibility to the statement, the author must provide the clear evidence that pet owners longer and healthier lives are contributed by the pets rather than else. To better assess the recommendation, it is strongly helpful to provide more information about that pets will not bring other disease to people which will influence their health.

polymathUID：179557

先帮你顶！:)

niuniu1983UID：2117413

In this memo, the author asserts that pet owners have longer and healthier live than those own no pets. He recommends the hospital should encourage patients to have a pet.(是不是应该把作者对本文的一页论证作一个generalize) The argument is well-reasoned at the first glance, but not well-grounded after a further reflection. The author fails to recognize all the elements necessary to evaluate the recommendation, thus makes his argument suffer from several fallacies which will be illustrated below.

To begin with, the author establishes his argument on a vague study report which itself is problematic. Author does not provide accurate data about the age, sex, health condition and so forth of study target and the target amount, by which the study result will be influenced. If there are only few of study target such as 10 or 20, the study result will have great possibility to come from haphazard. It is also possible the pet owners are all health before they own a dog, then their dogs contribute nothing to their longevity. Moreover, we can not exclude the possibility that they make good exercises everyday which contribute a lot to their health rather than dogs. As justifiable evidence, all of the forgoing points should be taken into consideration but they totally have been neglected by the author. For this matter, the less valuable of the report is, the less justifiable the author rely his argument that pet owners have longer lives on it.

Even one can accept the report result that pet owners have longer and healthier lives, the argument still remains questionable. It is possible that the pet owners are healthier than those without pets. There are many reasons to explain it besides pets. Maybe they are in better economic condition so they are certainly able to receive better medical care. Those who even worry about the cost of medicine are not capable to own( be capable of doing sth)a pet.  It is common sense that people who can take good care of the pets surely will take good care of themselves.(这个说法好像不对吧，可以说这些pet owners are in a good living conditions which serve to enhance their health.) Thus, it is justifiable the former will have a better chance to have longer and healthier lives.

Even one can accept the author recommendations to own a pet, nevertheless, the medical cost will not be certainly reduced. Although the study report simply said dog owners tend to have a lower incidence of heart disease, the possibility of other disease are not mentioned. It is justifiable to assume the higher incidences of other diseases will be conduced by the pets, since the pets are always contain(carrying) certain virus which will contaminate the people especially the people of old age(the people of old age 读上去好怪，不如就用 the old) with lower immunity. Thus, the cost of heart disease may be reduced, which, however, may not compensate the cost for other diseases. The medical cost actually is raised up.

To conclude, the author does not provide any grounded evidence to bolster his claim but several baseless assumptions and vague evidence. To lend the credibility to the statement, the author must provide the clear evidence that pet owners longer and healthier lives are contributed by the pets rather than else. To better assess the recommendation, it is strongly helpful to provide more information about that pets will not bring other disease to people which will influence their health.

[ Last edited by niuniu1983 on 2005-8-11 at 21:08 ]

niuniu1983UID：2117413

有空帮我看看
超高频 issue144 G-89-互助社－８.１０求互拍
https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthre ... light=%2Bniuniu1983

issue54 G-89-互助社11日同主题写作 补交
https://bbs.gter.net/bbs/viewthre ... light=%2Bniuniu1983