The following appeared in a health magazine published in Corpora.
“Medical experts say that only one-quarter of Corpora’s citizens meet the current standards for adequate physical fitness, even though twenty years ago, one-half of all of Corpora’s citizens met the standards as then defined. But these experts are mistaken when they suggest that spending too much time using computers has caused a decline in fitness. Since overall fitness levels are highest in regions of Corpora where levels of computer ownership are also highest, it is clear that using computers has not made citizens less physically fit. Instead, as shown by this year’s unusually low expenditures on fitness-related products and services, the recent decline in the economy is most likely the cause, and fitness levels will improve when the economy does”
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.
A clear ambiguity is present in the given argument and I could spot numerous logical fallacies in the same. I would like to enumerate my viewpoints and pose questions which would weaken the argument severely in the following paragraph.
Firstly, the claim made by Medical experts might not be very accurate. These experts maintain that "only" one quarter meet the "current standards" for adequate physical fitness and they compare this with the population of Corpora twenty years before. So many years before, the standards for testing physical fitness might have been different. What if the number of parameters used to deduce the fitness of an individual was way lesser than what we have in the present? It could have been also possible that medical experts who worked during that time were not as proficient as the ones we have today and the manner in which adequate physical fitness was determined might have been flawed. Or what if methods used for the determination of fitness levels are not accurate and precise? This leaves us to ponder about the fact whether one-half of all of Corpora's citizens were truly fit.
Secondly, these medical experts ascribe the decline in fitness to the increased use of computers, which again is dicey where the statement following it contradicts this suggestion by medical experts. Even though fitness levels are highest in regions of Corpora where levels of computer ownership are also high, does it certainly mean we can dismiss the suggestions of medical team without a second thought? The world has witnessed a enormous increase in population and it will continue to rise where we might reach ten billion mark in the near future! With that being said, Corpora's citizens are no exception to this universal increase. The fraction of Corpora's citizens using computers might be entirely different from the fraction that contributes to high levels of fitness. Therefore, it is not a clear judgement, making the argument flawed, once again.
Lastly, the argument claims that fitness levels will improve once economy improves. I can sense a logical fallacy here as well, indeed, a glaringly obvious one. It is not necessary that the use of fitness products and services are directly linked to one's fitness status. A person could choose to jog and exercise at his home and could still prove to be fit. Not everyone includes these products in their fitness regimen. The reason for the decline in fitness can be due to a number of reasons like seasonal changes, sedentary lifestyle preferred by people, or hectic work schedules and many more. If an individual wishes to be fit, and if the economy is poor, he could still become fit if he puts his body and mind in the right direction.
Hence, I would like to conclude by saying that there are numerous logical fallacies present in this argument and it will not hold valid unless it provides logical answers the posed questions and back up their claim with solid evidences.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 6 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 4 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 496 350
No. of Characters: 2417 1500
No. of Different Words: 252 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.719 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.873 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.446 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 185 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 147 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 89 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 48 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.565 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.576 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.565 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.282 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.486 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.113 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 432, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...second thought? The world has witnessed a enormous increase in population and it ...
^
Line 7, column 251, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
...cts and services are directly linked to ones fitness status. A person could choose t...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, hence, if, lastly, second, secondly, so, still, therefore, well
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 19.0 12.9520958084 147% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 13.6137724551 110% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 28.8173652695 142% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 16.3942115768 91% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2493.0 2260.96107784 110% => OK
No of words: 496.0 441.139720559 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.02620967742 5.12650576532 98% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71922212354 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60310835242 2.78398813304 94% => OK
Unique words: 255.0 204.123752495 125% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.514112903226 0.468620217663 110% => OK
syllable_count: 792.0 705.55239521 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 4.96107784431 202% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.9165737786 57.8364921388 97% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.318181818 119.503703932 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5454545455 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.09090909091 5.70786347227 72% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 19.0 8.20758483034 231% => Less positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 6.88822355289 29% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.67664670659 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.274158761666 0.218282227539 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0722858552394 0.0743258471296 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0678773831375 0.0701772020484 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.116059182523 0.128457276422 90% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.104888578222 0.0628817314937 167% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.19 12.5979740519 97% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.55 8.32208582834 103% => OK
difficult_words: 120.0 98.500998004 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 12.3882235529 69% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.