argument129 G-89-互助社-09日同主题写作

keeyangUID：2120118

题目

ARGUMENT 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.'

正文

In this argument, the arguer concludes that raising a dog help to reduce heart disease because a recent study shows that pet owners enjoy a healthier life and a lower incidence of heart disease. Based on this conclusion, he recommends that Sherwood Hospital (HS) should and Sherwood Animal Shelter (SAS) should together launch a program to encourage people to adopt a dog. This argument is problematic in several aspects.

First, the study cited in the argument lacks reliability. The arguer indicates no information about the number of people surveyed and the procedure of the study.  Therefore, we have good reason to doubt whether the result of this study is representative of other people, in general. Perhaps, this survey was conducted only among young people, who have a lower ratio of heart disease. If so, the study is not reliable to make any conclusion about the general population.  

Second, the correlation between adopting a pet and fewer heart attacks amount to scant evidence of the assumption that raising a dog can reduce the risk of heart disease. Generally speaking, those in good health will raise a dog for pleasure. On the contrary, those who suffer health problems may not have such hobbies for lack of energy. Therefore, it is more reasonable that good health enables people to raise a pet, than that the raising of pets enhances their owners’ heath.  

Third, given that pets such as dog benefit their owner, the assumption that the recovering population and the general public will adopt a dog from SAS is unwarranted. Whether they have time to take care a dog? Whether they have time or energy to do so? Without considering such factors, the arguer cannot confidently assumes that more people will raise dogs, no mention to reduce heart disease.

Finally, the arguer unfairly assumes that this dog-adopting will reduce the treatment cost. If the cost of raising a dog exceeds the expense of treating, this program is not economic for the patients. In addition, the arguer cannot rule out the possibility that the virus carried by dogs may cause other disease which imposes extra cost on the patients.


To sum up, this argument is unconvincing as it stands. To better strength this conclusion, the arguer should provide sufficient evidence to substantiate that raising dogs can reduce heart disease. He also should make thorough investigation about the attitudes of the patient towards adopting a dog.

polymathUID：179557

顶！:)