求拍！！！！ARGUMENT68 养狗治心脏病。

yuanyi0819UID: 3298691

先帖题目：68 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 should reduce these patients' chance of experiencing continuing
heart problems and also reduce their need for ongoing treatment. As a further
benefit, the publicity about the program would encourage more people to adopt
pets from the shelter. And that will reduce the incidence of heart disease in the
general population.
//Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions
of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these
assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions
prove unwarranted.//


再贴文章：
The author proposes that the dog owners have a lower incidence of heart disease
according to a recent study. And then she suggets that Sherwood Hospital to form a
adopt-a-dog program in order to help dog owners recovering from heart disease
and encourage more people to adopt dogs that will eventually reduce the incidence
of heart disease in the general population. But there is some flaws in her argument
that the conclusion is based on some unstated assumptions.

First, the conclusion that the adopt program can help owners recovering from heart
diseases is based on the assumptions that the recent survey is reliable. The author
does not points out its method of this survey. Perhaps the survey only covers the
population with in a small village and the result is not match with other areas.
Without verifying the reliability of the survey, the author cannot conclude that the
adoption can makes owner recover from heart diseases and eventually reduce the
incidence of the disease in all populations.

Second, even if the recent survey is reliable that the dog owners have a lower
incidence of heart disease, it does not mean that dog ownership can help patients
recover from heart disease that reduce their need for ongoing teatment  and chance
of experiencing continuing heart problems. Perhaps dogs can prevent owners from
having heart diseases, and if the owners already have this disease, dogs cannot cure
them. Perhaps healthy people like adopt dogs and dog owners surely have lower
"incidence" of heart disease. So the author`s assumption is based on the
assumptions that the concept of "lower incidence of heart disease" is same as that of
"recovery from heart disease".

Third, even the dog adoption can help owners recover from the heart disease, it is
unfair to conclude that the publicity about th program would encourage more
people to adopt pets from the shelter. Perhaps people with heart disease want to
treat their diseases by traditional methods and do not want to adopt pets to cure
them. So the author based on the unstated assumption that the success of curing
disease by adopting dogs will lead to people`s willing to adopt them. Without
pointing out whether the assumption really exist, the author cannot conclude that
the further benefits that there will be more adoption from the shelther.

Finally, even though the assumption that the program will encorage more people to
adopt pets from the Sherwood shelter and adoption will really cure the heart
disease, it does not mean the incidence of heart disease of all the population will
decrease. Perhaps other shelters do not absorb people in adopting like Sherwood.

Therefore, the author based on unstated assumption that the reliablity of survey, the
concept of "incidence of heart disease" and "recovery from heart disease", the
willing of peoples adopting even though it can cure the disease, and the publicity of
the whole population of this trend. Without pointing out these assumptions, the
author cannot conclude that people will recover from heart disease under the
adoption and reduce the whole populations` incidence of heart disease.


字数有点多，写的后面时间有点紧张。
刚好三十分钟，字数512
我的四段论述大纲：
1，survey可靠性
2，lower incidence 不等于recovery 心脏病
3，publicity of the adoption 不一定会导致领养狗或宠物的增加
4，Sherwood 领养宠物增加，以及领养宠物真的可以治愈心脏病不代表 所有人的患病几率下降（以小见大错误）

yuanyi0819UID: 3298691

顶顶顶

yuanyi0819UID: 3298691

有木有人哇～～！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！！

yuanyi0819UID: 3298691

好桑心
为啥木有人捏？？

okqishiUID: 3245371

楼主有改过其他版友的作文么？
AW版公告：https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1375137-1-1.html

yuanyi0819UID: 3298691

5# okqishi 木有改过 但是提过那种很细的建议。。。
额。。。
弱弱的问 可以么。。。。

okqishiUID: 3245371

最近几位版主都比较忙，抽不出时间帮各位改作文，还请见谅
建议楼主找个战友互改吧 这样效率高很多
如果散装发帖求改的话，LZ可以试着先帮别人改一篇，然后留下自己习作的链接，这样被改的几率大很多

yuanyi0819UID: 3298691

7# okqishi 好的！！！谢谢您
其实我不需要很细的修改 我就想让别人看看我的思路和整体逻辑。。。
戳手。。。。。

shawnicUID: 3202665

个人意见
survey范围和可靠性这个东西可以怀疑但力度比较小，在这篇当中感觉作为背景更合适，你可以说没有因果关系等等。其他三个还好。
另外建议LZ先贴到word里查一下错误，我个人建议句子不要用and和but开头

yuanyi0819UID: 3298691

9# shawnic 好德知道了
我就想看看自己思路和逻辑语言的运用
貌似这个还是蛮重要的
我也觉得AND开头很奇怪。。。

yuanyi0819UID: 3298691

11# gwgj41 研读完OG 我发现中间的支持不需要写的那么全面 再说也永远写不全面。