argument176 G89组8.2作业

liulin12369UID: 2112878

129,'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 argument is not cogent because it assumes that the stated correlation implied the causation, which is not necessaryly the case. The argument asserts that an "adopt-a dog" program would ecourage dog ownership for patients recovering from heart disease, and this action will help reduce medical costs and reduce the risk of heart  disease.  The assertion is based on the a recent study stated above. Careful scrutiny on the statement reveal several logical  flaws to render this argument unpersuasive.

First of all, the study is unconvincing for other alternatives. Be concerned with the report that pet owners have long, healthier lives on average than people who own no pets, it is possible that people who adopt pet are naturally more heathier than those suffer from a poor healthy condition. In fact, a patient cannot devote much energy to look after a animal, and perhaps person intend to own a pet because of their healthy and ease feeling rather than pets could render health. Another study that dog owners tend to have a lower incidence of heart disease is also doubtful The informents could probably quite use to a life with a dog or they may lead a wealthy life and enjoy a peaceful and friendly atmosphere. Instead, dog snarl will possibly cause a heart attack at any time.

Secondly, even if the study is correct, there is no evidence that people will follow its advice to adopt a dog from the program. It is impossible to get along with a dog when the petient are allergic to the fur of the dog. Meanwhile, if the space and time is not quite sufficient to maintain a dog, this idea will not be very attractive. Sometimes, a group of people are born with the fear and disgust about dogs. Even if people are willing to adopt a dog , they may pick up other approach to get a dog rather than adopt it from the shelters. If  dogs provided sre not exactly the one accorded to the adopter's require, people will turn to pet shops.  

Thirdly, even though we suppose all the assumptions are correct and thus people are willing to adopt dogs from the shelters, still we could not arrive at the conclusion that the cost of treatment will decrease by the reducing of  heart disease risk. If the adopter is allergic to the animal's fur, the cost for this illness will increase. Also, the animal may be a bacteria carrier and  the infection will be caused by living with it. Consider with these situation, whether the medical cost will reduce is up in the air.

In sum, the conlusion for people are willing to adopt a dog and thus the cost of treatment will reduce is not well justfied. To strengthen the argument, the auther must provide clear evidence that the study could make people to adopt dog from the shelter. To better assess  the author's recommendation, we would need more information about the cost of heart disease treatment.

刚开张的的argu，好心的，有经验的人来看看吧？

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-3 at 22:49 ]

accoladeUID: 2110746

129,'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 argument is not cogent because it assumes that the stated correlation implied the causation, which is not necessaryly the case. The argument asserts that an "adopt-a dog" program would ecourage dog ownership for patients recovering from heart disease, and this action will help reduce medical costs and reduce the risk of heart  disease.  The assertion is based on the a recent study stated above. Careful scrutiny on the statement reveal several logical  flaws to render this argument unpersuasive.

First of all, the study is unconvincing for other alternatives这个词不错的说. Be concerned with the report that pet owners have longer, healthier lives on average than people who own no pets, it is possible that people who adopt pet are naturally？ more heathier than those who suffer from a poor healthy condition. In fact, a patient cannot devote much energy to look after a animal, and perhaps person intend to own a pet because of their healthy and ease feeling rather than pets could render health. Another study 怎么又来了个study:L that dog owners tend to have a lower incidence of heart disease is also doubtful The informents could probably quite use to a life with a dog or they may lead a wealthy life and enjoy a peaceful and friendly atmosphere. Instead, dog snarl will possibly cause a heart attack at any time.

Secondly, even if the study is correct, there is no evidence that people will follow its advice to adopt a dog from the program. It is impossible to get along with a dog when the petient are allergic to the fur of the dog. Meanwhile, if the space and time is not quite sufficient to maintain a dog, this idea will not be very attractive. Sometimes, a group of people are born with the fear and disgust about dogs. Even if people are willing to adopt a dog , they may pick up other approach to get a dog rather than adopt it from the shelters. If  dogs provided sreare not exactly the one accorded to the adopter's require, people will turn to pet shops.  

Thirdly, even though we suppose all the assumptions are correct and thus people are willing to adopt dogs from the shelters, still we could not arrive at the conclusion that the cost of treatment will decrease by the reducing of  heart disease risk. If the adopter is allergic to the animal's fur, the cost for this illness will increase. Also, the animal may be a bacteria carrier and  the infection will be caused by living with it. Consider with these situation, whether the medical cost will reduce is up in the air.

In sum, the conlusion for people are willing to adopt a dog and thus the cost of treatment will reduce is not well justfied. To strengthen the argument, the auther must provide clear evidence that the study could make people to adopt dog from the shelter. To better assess  the author's recommendation, we would need more information about the cost of heart disease treatment.

提几个问题，有的是关于这篇作文的，有的是我自己的一些困惑：
1，general people也就是题目中的最后一句话似乎没有提到
2，这个问题是我自己的。
    关于什么样的stduy可以认为不科学。文中的study没有提及范围阿数据啊什么的，这种情况能否怀疑？怎么处理比较好些。

conclusion：文章结构完整，语言流畅且有不俗之处，令人拍案，论证到位且逐渐剩入。
祝限时成功

笨小孩
我没写过arg所以只能提这些意见了。不过你语言的确不错

[ Last edited by accolade on 2005-8-3 at 21:34 ]

liulin12369UID: 2112878

这是没有限时，限时语言就是垃圾了，怎么办555