68.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 should reduce these patients' chance of experiencing continuing heart problems and also reduce their need for ongoing treatment. As a further benefit, the publicity about the program would encourage more people to adopt pets from the shelter. And that will reduce the incidence of heart disease in the general population.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The argument explains that the ownership of dogs leads to a lower possibility of heart disease, and patients who are in the process of recovering from heart diseases will benefit from the adoption of dogs. Also, it argues that the adoption program will encourage the community to adopt more pets. However, these issues are not sound and will need further evidence to support them.
First of all, the relationship between taking care of a dog and becoming a victim of a heart disease is not transparent. To further explain this relationship the author should provide additional information such as "dog owners tend to have a lower heart disease rate due to the stimulation of chemical signals inside the body when interacting with their pets". On the contrary, the passage does not provide any such supporting detail, and the low possibility of a heart attack may be the result from the fact that dog owners are usually young people whom obviously has a lower chance of getting cardinal diseases. Consequently, the author should elaborate more on the relationship between dog care and heart illnesses.
Next, even though owning a dog helps you to prevent cardinal illness, it isn't sufficient to argue that it will also help cure those diseases. For instance, even though the interaction with the dog makes the owner's body emit disease preventing material, the material will be no use once the body has become ill. Therefore, it is hasty to assert that adopting dogs will lead to an abridged treatment of a disease.
Finally, it would not be logical to assume that the publicity of a program will lead to increased adaptation rates, especially from the shelter. Even though the program is advertised and promulgated, it may not catch people's interests because the public may think that they have nothing to do with cardinal disease and thus overlook the advertisements. In addition, the program is about adopting dogs while the passage asserts that people will adopt more animals in general, especially from shelters, which is a rash generalization. For example, although the adaptation rates of dogs may increase, people will tend to ignore cats or birds. Also, the public might have a perception that animals from the shelter are less hygienic and will prefer adopting dogs from pet shops instead of shelters. Hence, there should be additional information that links the relationship between the publicity of a program and the adaptation rate of animals from the shelter.
In conclusion, the passage fails to prove that dogs will lead to a lower heart illness rate, and that adaptation of it will accelerate the cure of those diseases. Also, it needs to elaborate upon whether the promulgation of these adaptation programs will lead to lost animals finding new homes
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 75, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...lps you to prevent cardinal illness, it isnt sufficient to argue that it will also h...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, consequently, finally, first, hence, however, look, may, so, therefore, thus, while, for example, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, in general, such as, first of all, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.6327345309 66% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 23.0 12.9520958084 178% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 28.8173652695 101% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 16.3942115768 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2333.0 2260.96107784 103% => OK
No of words: 459.0 441.139720559 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08278867102 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62863751936 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.72813690152 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 216.0 204.123752495 106% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.470588235294 0.468620217663 100% => OK
syllable_count: 729.9 705.55239521 103% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 8.0 8.76447105788 91% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.3372433385 57.8364921388 85% => OK
Chars per sentence: 129.611111111 119.503703932 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.5 23.324526521 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 10.8888888889 5.70786347227 191% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.170914089843 0.218282227539 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0592593140109 0.0743258471296 80% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0383896550522 0.0701772020484 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0990484391963 0.128457276422 77% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0433453557697 0.0628817314937 69% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 14.3799401198 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.3550499002 95% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.197005988 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.48 12.5979740519 99% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.49 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 105.0 98.500998004 107% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.