Argument129高频 G89-互助社 8月9号作业

zrreignUID: 179980

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."

The author claims a conclusion that we should adopt pets, since the people who have pets can live longer than those don not have. Especially the dogs, they can low the proportion of heart disease, therefore we can benefit from our pets. But absence of sufficient evidence to support the assertion, the conclusion is unconvincing to me.

First, author emphasizes the research result to strengthen his or her claim that pet owners have longer lives. But this study is too weak to be taken as the convictive assumption. Author hastily equates pets to the cause of low percentage of heart disease, which is likely that there is no relevancy between the nosogenetic factors and the statement of pets. Moreover, although people who have dogs may have better heart condition than those have not, it is possible that some other factors can affect them, which may be rendered as some insignificant facts by author, but is the real causing reason. Therefore, author should provide some more specific information about how do pets influence the owners' health, otherwise, this assumption can not guarantee the conclusion.

Second, even we can trust the assumption that pets are the definitely influencing causes in the result of this study, we still can not give the claim credence, because author has to take into account of the backgrounds of all the respondents. It might be that all the interviewers who own dogs are teenagers or youth, a group which is so young that can exclude the danger completely. Therefore, their feedbacks can not be rendered as the same considerations with what the elderly reply.

Finally, author emphasizes the effect of pets exaggerated and unpractical. He offers no evidence to show that pets can be efficient for the recovering of heart disease. Even we can admit the cause-and-effect relationship of dogs, we can not believe it can also influence the medical treatment. On the contrary, it is largely probable that the percentage of the certain illness caused by the hair and helminthes of pets will emerge, which may induce the large-scale effective disease in hospital, and will be large disaster for patients. Thus, so insufficient are those reasons  pointing out the impact of dogs, the conclusion can not be accepted.

To compensate the assertion, author should add more details to prove that there is confirmed connection of pets and the cause of heart disease. Moreover, he has to inform us the specific researchers' instructions, to justify the ratiocination of selection. Lacking of all the above, I can not convince the claim.

polymathUID: 179557

顶一个！:)

plutoplutoUID: 2116389

占 ,我来拍

plutoplutoUID: 2116389

Argument129高频 G89-互助社 8月9号作业

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."

The author claims a conclusion that 直接claims that吧 we 这里用WE不好，原文已有对象了 should adopt pets, since the people who have pets can live longer than those don not have. Especially the dogs, they can low the proportion of heart disease, therefore we can benefit from our pets.这段改写似乎有些偏离原文了 But absence of sufficient evidence to support the assertion, the conclusion is unconvincing to me.

First, author emphasizes the research result to strengthen his or her claim that pet owners have longer lives. But this study is too weak to be taken as the convictive assumption. Author hastily equates pets 是DOGS to the cause of low percentage of heart disease, which is likely that there is no relevancy between the nosogenetic factors and the statement of pets看不懂 . Moreover, although people who have dogs may have better heart condition than those have not, it is possible that some other factors can affect them, which may be rendered as some insignificant facts by author, but is the real causing reason没说清啊，举个例子好些. Therefore, author should provide some more specific information about how do pets influence the owners' health, otherwise, this assumption can not guarantee the conclusion.

Second, even we can trust the assumption that pets are the definitely influencing causes in the result of this study, we still can not give the claim credence, because author has to take into account of the backgrounds of all the respondents. It might be that all the interviewers who own dogs are teenagers or youth, a group which is so young that can exclude the danger completely例子很好，但最后一个分句不好，有些绝对. Therefore, their feedbacks can not be rendered as the same considerations with what the elderly reply. 建议再考虑下第二、三段究竟谁放在前面在逻辑上更好些

Finally, author emphasizes the effect of pets exaggerated and unpractical. He offers no evidence to show that pets can be efficient for the recovering of heart disease. Even we can admit the cause-and-effect relationship of dogs, we can not believe it can also influence the medical treatment恩，很好，学习一下. On the contrary, it is largely probable that the percentage of the certain illness caused by the hair and helminthes of pets will emerge, which may induce the large-scale effective disease in hospital, and will be large disaster for patients. Thus, so insufficient are those reasons  pointing out the impact of dogs不用倒装吧？, the conclusion can not be accepted.

To compensate the assertion, author should add more details to prove that there is confirmed connection of pets and the cause of heart disease. Moreover, he has to inform us the specific researchers' instructions, to justify the ratiocination of selection. Lacking of all the above, I can not convince the claim.
有些瑕疵，总体不错。但你没有涉及到 “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."  不知道会不会影响得分啊？？

zrreignUID: 179980

谢谢plutopluto，说得都好到位，一下就说中了。我会改正过来的，谢谢你了！赫赫，果然是牛啊