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.
It stated in the prompt that, Sherwood Hospital should form a partnership with Sherwood Animal Shelter to institute an adopt-a-dog program for patient. Additionally they support this argument by stating that, according to study reported that pet owner have longer, healthier lives on average than do people who owns no pet. Specially, dog owner tend to have a lower incidence of heart disease. However, before it is blatant to answer some question before jumping to conclusion.
First of all, what if, some patients don’t like the dog adoption program? Or what if, some patients have allergy to dog’s hair? Maybe some patient in the Sherwood Hospital doesn’t like pets due to reason like they have allergy or they are afraid of dogs. In this case it is plausible that patient in that hospital will be not filling comfortable and if patient in the hospital is not comfortable then it is blatant that their recovery rate reduces. Maybe it is also possible that some patients are allergic to dog’s hair which may give birth to other problems. If this happens to be true, then it is blatant that all patients will not like this idea and it may exacerbate the patient’s condition.
Secondly, are dogs allowed in hospital? Or what is the possibility that all patients will be free from heart disease? Maybe, even if some of the patients adopt the dog they will not able to keep that dog in hospital as it is blatant that it will create problem to other patient who don’t like dogs or are allergic to dogs. In this case adopting a dog is useless as they will have to leave the dog at home. Some old heart patient will not be able to take care of the dog properly so it may create more stress to them as well as to the dog. In this case it may have adverse effect on their health. If this happen to be true then conclusion drown from the prompt does not hold the water.
Finally, after heavy expenses on heart disease how many people will able to afford a dog? Or how many people will able to take good care of the dog? As maintaining the dog is very expensive and time consuming. So many patients will not able to afford the dog after heavy expenses on their health and even if they did they will not able to properly maintain that dog. If this happens to be true then conclusion made by arguer is not practically possible.
In conclusion, the evidence provided by the arguer, that supports his claim, is dubious as well as erroneous. If all the questions are answer and more evidences are provided then it will strengthen the argument.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 459 350
No. of Characters: 2028 1500
No. of Different Words: 182 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.629 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.418 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.314 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 124 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 98 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 65 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 27 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.125 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.502 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.316 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.511 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.112 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 153, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Additionally,
...ute an adopt-a-dog program for patient. Additionally they support this argument by stating t...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 134, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...free from heart disease? Maybe, even if some of the patients adopt the dog they will not ab...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 597, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ay have adverse effect on their health. If this happen to be true then conclusion ...
^^
Line 7, column 368, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...not able to properly maintain that dog. If this happens to be true then conclusion...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, finally, first, however, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, well, as to, in conclusion, as well as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 24.0 19.6327345309 122% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 10.0 11.1786427146 89% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 45.0 28.8173652695 156% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 59.0 55.5748502994 106% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 16.3942115768 43% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2102.0 2260.96107784 93% => OK
No of words: 456.0 441.139720559 103% => OK
Chars per words: 4.60964912281 5.12650576532 90% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.62105577807 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.4006698242 2.78398813304 86% => OK
Unique words: 194.0 204.123752495 95% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.425438596491 0.468620217663 91% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 649.8 705.55239521 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59920159681 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 1.0 8.76447105788 11% => OK
Subordination: 8.0 2.70958083832 295% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.6208564836 57.8364921388 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 87.5833333333 119.503703932 73% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.0 23.324526521 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.0 5.70786347227 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 8.20758483034 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.227447389523 0.218282227539 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0776078354226 0.0743258471296 104% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.104295740099 0.0701772020484 149% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.150210848687 0.128457276422 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.173661732214 0.0628817314937 276% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 9.8 14.3799401198 68% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 69.11 48.3550499002 143% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 8.3 12.197005988 68% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.46 12.5979740519 75% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.31 8.32208582834 88% => OK
difficult_words: 79.0 98.500998004 80% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 12.3882235529 61% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => 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.