argument129 G-89-互助社-8月10日同主题写作 ……

plutoplutoUID: 2116389

Argument129  让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
限时失败,总是差那么一点点,还要继续努力.打错字的情况也特别多
大家看看我是否把改批的点都批到了,另外看看措辞有没有错误
好,我先去拍人了
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：41分22秒     370 words
从2005年7月10日17时6分到2005年7月10日17时41分
------题目------
The 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.'
------正文------
In this passage, the author concludes that dog ownership could have a positive effect in recovering from heart disease and further reducing the risk of heart disease among the public. The arguer further recommending that Sherwood Hospital should form an "adopt-a-dog" program with the animal shelter for the benefit the dogs may bring. However, the argument suffers from several fatal flaws and thus cannot stand close scrutiny.

To begin with, the author first mentions a recent study while he provides no detailed information about either the agency that conduct this study or the reliability of the study. Besides, the mere fact that dog owners have longer, healthier lives and lower incidence of heart disease on average than do people who own no pet does not necessarily indicate that pet-ownership is the reason for healthier life. However, things could just be the opposite: the people who own dogs may actually be healthier before they adopt those dogs and therefore healthy servers as a precondition for adopting dogs. It is understandable that those people who have severe illness and have to lie on the bed all day probably would not be able to have pets. Thus, it is unreliable to conclude that owning dogs can cause a lower incidence of heart disease from this study.

Moreover, even if we assume that owning dogs could lower the incidence of heart disease, the author fails to consider other possibilities when he optimistically predicts that the "adopt-a- dog" program will help reducing medical costs of those patients recovering from heart disease. The ongoing treatment of heart disease is just one kind of the medical costs. It is possible that those patients might be bite by the dogs they adopt and need to spend money to cure the wound or injecting bacterin for guarding against rabies. Thus, it is not sure whether the medical cost would be lower than before.

Last, the arguer shows no evidence that the public will be encouraged to adopt pets by this program.  He makes a questionable assumption that more people would adopt after the publicity about the program. However, the citizens of Sherwood may just realize the harm of heart disease and instead exercise more and maintain a healthy diet to prevent heart diseases.

To sum up, the arguer has not succeeded in providing compelling reasons to prove that dog-ownership will reduce the incidence of heart disease. And his suggestion of "adopt-a-dog” program may not work out as he has respected. To support his conclusion, he needs to provide more reliable studies about the relationship between owning dogs and guarding against heart disease.

tianrushuiUID: 207550

In this passage, the author concludes that dog ownership could have a positive effect in recovering from heart disease and further reducing the risk of heart disease among the public. The arguer further recommending that Sherwood Hospital should form an "adopt-a-dog" program with the animal shelter for the benefit the dogs may bring. However, the argument suffers from several fatal flaws and thus cannot stand close scrutiny.

To begin with, the author first mentions a recent study while he provides no detailed information about either the agency that conduct this study or the reliability of the study. Besides, the mere fact that dog owners have longer, healthier lives and lower incidence of heart disease on average than do people who own no pet does not necessarily indicate that pet-ownership is the reason for healthier life. However, things could just be the opposite: the people who own dogs may actually be healthier before they adopt those dogs and therefore healthy servers as a precondition for adopting dogs. It is understandable that those people who have severe illness and have to lie on the bed all day probably would not be able to have pets. Thus, it is unreliable to conclude that owning dogs can cause a lower incidence of heart disease from this study.

Moreover, even if we assume that owning dogs could lower the incidence of heart disease, the author fails to consider other possibilities when he optimistically predicts that the "adopt-a- dog" program will help reducing medical costs of those patients recovering from heart disease. The ongoing treatment of heart disease is just one kind of the medical costs. It is possible that those patients might be bite by the dogs they adopt and need to spend money to cure the wound or injecting bacterin for guarding against rabies. Thus, it is not sure whether the medical cost would be lower than before.我觉得这里还可以加上就算真的lower the incidence of heart disease，也只代表能够prevent，可能对于已经有heart disease的人来说，对帮助治疗没什么作用
Last, the arguer shows no evidence that the public will be encouraged to adopt pets by this program.  He makes a questionable assumption that more people would adopt after the publicity about the program. However, the citizens of Sherwood may just realize the harm of heart disease and instead exercise more and maintain a healthy diet to prevent heart diseases.

To sum up, the arguer has not succeeded in providing compelling reasons to prove that dog-ownership will reduce the incidence of heart disease. And his suggestion of "adopt-a-dog” program may not work out as he has respected. To support his conclusion, he needs to provide more reliable studies about the relationship between owning dogs and guarding against heart disease 结尾提出的解决方案再写详细点把.
好象也没看出别的什么了
帮我也改改吧:)
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=315264

plutoplutoUID: 2116389

多谢,你的我明天发上来好吧??