9G倒计时 Argument 心脏病与宠物狗那一题 I need your advice~~~

SilpakornUID: 2988290

Believing that owning a pet dog is effective in treating heart diseases, the author recommends that these patients should kave a dog. Moreover, he believes that publicity of such a programme could further encourage more people to adopt homeless dogs from an animal center. However, close examination of his line of reasoning reveals that the recommendation is based on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, which makes it unconvincing as it stands.

Citing a recent study, the author reports that dog owners have a lower incidence of heart disease. However, we are not informed about the scope of the study as yet. If the sample was too small, or it is not randomly selected, the conclusion based upon it might not be convincing enough. Besides, even if the study is devoid of these methodological flaws, we can still cast reasonable doubt on the conclusion. We cannot rule out the possibility that lower incidence of heart disease among dog owners could be attributed to factors other than owing a dog. It is entirely possible that the diet of these people tend to be much healthier or they do exercises regularly, which are also effective in preventing heart diseases. Unless the author could establish a clear and convincing correlation, he cannot justifiably conclude that it is the pet dog that help lower the incidence of heart diseases.

Additionally, the author also assumes that by establishing an adopt-a-dog program in collaboration with an animal shelter, we can expect a lower chance for experiencing a heart diseases and patients' need for ongoing treatment. Even if owing a pet dog effectively reduced the likelihood of contracting heart disease, as the study has indicated, there is no evidence suggesting that it could obviate the need for heart disease treatment for patients. Without convincing evidence suggesting pet dog is also effective for heart disease treatment, the conclusion of the author is by no means warranted.

Last but not least, even if the aforementioned assumptions are all valid enough to withstand scrutiny, it is still reasonable for us to cast doubt on the conclusion that more people are willing to adopt a dog from the animal center. Perhaps, the majority of residents in this city are not dog lovers. Or they believe that owning a dog would incur unnecessary financial burden. In either cases, we cannot expect more people to adopt a dog from the animal center hence lower incidence of heart disease among people.

It is easy to understand that people would be attentive to new therapies for preventing and treating heart diseases. However, the author fails to demonstrate beyond doubt that owning pet dog is helpful for reducing likelihood of heart disease. Therefore, his recommendation is not be convincing enough to persuade more people to adopt a pet dog.

coco3263UID: 16360

很平稳，语言流畅，而且每一段，都重复了一下文中的值得反驳的那句话~ 感觉这个里面还有一些点是可以反驳的，如果要说改进可以再增强argue的力度。