argument129G-89-互助社８.９作业

melinda2036UID: 2108044

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."
An ‘adopt-a-dog’ program will reduce the risk of heart disease
In this argument, the arguer presents a recent study, which reported that pet owners have lower incidence of heart disease than, do people who own no pets. Then the arguer advocates that Sherwood Hospital should encourage dog ownership for patients recovering from heart disease, which may reduce medical costs by reducing the number of treatment. He or she further addresses that an 'adopt-a-dog' program should be adopted for the publicity, for it will reduce the risk of heart disease. The whole argument suffers from several critical logic flaws and is ultimately groundless.
First of all, there is no further information available for the recent study presented by the arguer. We do not know whether it is conducted by the authoritative scientific research or by a survey. If scientists conduct it, whether the information revealed by the report is being tested or has already proved. If it is presented by a survey, then how many people are involved in that survey, and what percentages these people who have pet as who do not, and what percentages these people who do not own pet suffer from disease, especially heart disease. Without the statistical number or relevant material, the report is doubtful. It is possible that the people participated in the survey accidentally own pets and hold healthier lives. Or it may be the case that the people who do not own pets suffer from some disease which largely due to their unhealthy life styles. All these possibilities further weaken the argument and make the argument groundless.
Secondly, even assuming that there is a possible link between the ownership of the pet and the healthier lives, it is unwise to propose the hospital to encourage dog ownership for patients recovering from heart disease. Even the report is not sure and states that dog owners tend to have a lower incidence of heart disease. It means that the dog ownership may have some inexcusable relationships with the lower risk of heart disease, but not inevitable. Moreover, that statement may also means that the dog ownership may prevent people from getting heart disease, while do no good to the people who have already got this special disease. So it is a foolish idea to use dog ownership to reduce medical costs by reducing the number of these patients needing ongoing treatment. It may cause some horrible consequences by simply reducing the patients’ normal treatment. Some patients may lose the previous time to receive the immediate treatment and worsen patients’ condition. In this sense, the argument is unacceptable and irresponsible.
In a similar vein, it is improper for the proposal to encourage more people to adopt pets from the shelter. It is absurd to advocate a program with no valid support, and then it would be a further joking to widen the working area of the program before it being tested or used in certain group. Though it may not bring hurt to people, the program may really do not work or do no good in reducing the heart disease.
In summary, the whole argument is based on doubtable report, which reveals nothing and proves nothing. No one can accept this argument for it is lacking the logical thinking and relevant material or useful information to support.
又严重超时，我欲哭无泪．吐吧:vomit:

keeyangUID: 2120118

我来了！

keeyangUID: 2120118

排版很乱的说，批一个！

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."
An ‘adopt-a-dog’ program will reduce the risk of heart disease


In this argument, the arguer presents a recent study, which reported that pet owners have lower incidence of heart disease than, do people who own no pets. Then the arguer advocates that Sherwood Hospital should encourage dog ownership for patients recovering from heart disease, which may reduce medical costs by reducing the number of treatment. He or she further addresses that an 'adopt-a-dog' program should be adopted for the publicity, for it will reduce the risk of heart disease. The whole argument suffers from several critical logic flaws and is ultimately groundless.

First of all, there is no further information available for the recent study presented by the arguer. We do not know whether it is conducted by the authoritative scientific research or by a survey. If scientists conduct it, whether the information revealed by the report is being tested or has already proved. If it is presented by a survey, then how many people are involved in that survey, and what percentages these people who have pet as who do not, and what percentages these people who do not own pet suffer from disease, especially heart disease. Without the statistical number or relevant material, the report is doubtful. 换个词 unreliable  这里应该连接一下，因为下面是另一个意思了It is possible that the people participated in the survey accidentally own pets and hold healthier lives. Or it may be the case that the people who do not own pets suffer from some disease which largely is due to their unhealthy life styles. All these possibilities further weaken the argument and make the argument groundless. 后面这句话可以不要

Secondly, even assuming that there is a possible link between the ownership of the pet and the healthier lives, it is unwise to propose the hospital to encourage dog ownership for patients recovering from heart disease. Even the report is not sure and states that dog owners tend to have a lower incidence of heart disease. It means that the dog ownership may have some inexcusable 这个词不合适relationships with the lower risk of heart disease, but not inevitable. Moreover, that statement may also means that the dog ownership may prevent people from getting heart disease, while do no good to the people who have already got this special disease. So it is a foolish idea to use dog ownership to reduce medical costs by reducing the number of these patients needing ongoing treatment. It may cause some horrible consequences by simply reducing the patients’ normal treatment. Some patients may lose the previous time to receive the immediate treatment and worsen patients’ condition. In this sense, the argument is unacceptable and irresponsible. 后面那个想法很有新意

In a similar vein, it is improper for the proposal to encourage more people to adopt pets from the shelter. It is absurd to advocate a program with no valid support, and then it would be a further joking to widen the working area of the program before it being tested or used in certain group. Though it may not bring hurt to people, the program may really do not work or do no good in reducing the heart disease.
这一段是攻击下面这一句的，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. 我的理解是这句话是作者的一个推测，而不是建议，所以攻击的重点不应该是这个建议怎么不合理，而应该是这个推测不一定实现，因为可能有其他原因，一般人不会收养宠物

In summary, the whole argument is based on doubtable report, which reveals nothing and proves nothing. No one can accept this argument for it is lacking the logical thinking and relevant material or useful information to support.
这样的结尾我从来没有见过，好像一般都是模板那个样子的，具体优劣你自己比较一下吧


语言很丰富流畅，不错！

melinda2036UID: 2108044

To some extent, it is impossible for the publicity about the program to encourage more people to adopt pets from the shelter, for they may simply not believe the program. Even people do believe it, there may be plethora of reasons for them not to adopt pets from the shelter: they are sensitive to the smell of the pet, they are afraid of some other diseases caused by pets and so on. It does not follow that advertising a program can really lead people to do so. With no other support, the predication that more people are encouraged to adopt pets and then reducing the heart disease in general population is rather than a good wish.　谢谢keeyang的中肯批评，自己看了下第三段的论述真的很成问题，从写了下，麻烦再看看，还有排版的问题我保证下次不再犯了．呵呵

melinda2036UID: 2108044

还有结尾的问题，我昨天严重超时，写得火大结尾就随便写了下，可能不太好，以后还是用模版好了．