Argument60 476 words 30 minutes

wangqhUID: 204897

The following appeared in the health section of Glenntown's local newspaper.
'Several national medical studies suggest that older people who have pets tend to enjoy better health than those who do not have pets: those who have pets have lower rates of high blood pressure and arthritis. It seems clear that having to care for an animal promotes good health for the older person. Therefore, Glenntown should establish a program to give a small pet such as a dog or cat to all of its citizens who are over the age of 65. This will help to insure that our senior citizens enjoy good health and have fewer medical bills.'

The author recommends that the citizens should be offered pets. To support the recommendation, the author notes several studies and points out that the caring for pets promotes good health for the older persons. However, careful and in-depth scrutiny from several respects reveals the argument's logical flaws, which undermine it and render it unconvincing.

First, there is no evidence that the national medical studies are accurate and authoritative. Without being mentioned with any detailed information, the studies are dubious at best. If the studies did not randomly select their objections, they are unfairly carried. If that is the case, with the hypothesis of the argument entirely being toppled, the total reasoning and recommendation is untenable.

Second, even if the studies are accurate and authoritative and can definitely reflect the reality, they are national ones, which cannot be representative of the Glenntown. In other words, the author commits a fallacy of hasty focusing by applying the situations nationwide to a local place.

Third, granted that the whole foregoing factors are all well provided by the author, the author makes a suspicious definition of health in the argument--those who have pets have lower rates of high blood pressure and arthritis. High blood pressure and arthritis are two common ailments in the old people, but they cannot cover all the ailments. It is possible that those who have pets have a great many other kinds of ailments, some of which may be even fatal. Without ruling out the possibility, the author unfairly draws the conclusion that the pets are conducive to the promotion of health for the old.

Fourth, the author fails to establish the definition that the old persons are those who are over the age of 65. If it is reality that the pets are such helpful, why do not the author recommend the programs for those who are at the age of 64? They can almost be regarded as the old. In other words, the recommendation provided by the author contains a vague and dubious definition, which makes the recommendation ungrounded.

Finally, it is not necessary for the Glenntown to develop such a program. They can insure the senior citizens' good health from other ways, such as the social welfare and the promoted facilities of the nursing house. Without taking those factors into account, the author makes an unnecessary recommendation.

In conclusion, without being tightly constructed, the argument lacks persuasive and levelheaded reasoning and therefore is logically unwarranted. To strengthen it, the author should provide detailed and affirmative evidence that the studies are authoritative and can represent the situation of Glenntown. Also, the author should give us the reason why the senior people are those who are over the age of 65. To better evaluate it, we need more information about the other conditions of Glenntown concerning the old, especially the social welfare and the nursing house.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-16 at 10:54 ]

sunny_apmUID: 2702265

留澳交流群  476签证群！
66347958
qq ：601334624