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.
Merely based on the unfounded assumption and dubious evidence, the argument draws the conclusion that adopting pets from the shelter could reduce the incidence of heart disease in the general population. To substantiate this conclusion, the arguer points out that a recent survey reported pet owners to have longer, healthier lives than people who do not have pets. At first glance, the arguer’s argument appears to seem somewhat convincing, but the further reflections reveal that it omits some essential concerns which should be addressed in the statement. In my point of view, the argument suffers from many logical flaws.
Firstly, the argument observes a correlation between the fact of owning pets and pet owners tend to have a lower incidence of heart disease, thus concludes that the former is the cause of the latter. However, the argument fails to rule out other possible explanations for pet owners of having longer and healthier lives. For example, the pet owners who could afford to have pets live more wealthy lives than people who don’t have pets, thus they might receive better health care and the places they live might be less polluted. Or pet owners have healthier physical conditions in the first place. Without ruling out other possible factors, it is unfair to conclude that owning pets can reduce the incidence of heart disease.
Secondly, the argument claims that dog ownership can help patients to recover from heart disease. Nonetheless, even owning pets is beneficial to reduce the possibility of heart disease, it does not necessarily mean that it can help patients to recover from heart disease. After all, preventing heart disease and recovering from heart disease is a whole different story. Moreover, patients who suffer from heart disease might not be able to take care of both of themselves and the dogs, due to the lack of money and time. Also, the author need to address more evidence on keeping dogs can help patients to recover from heart disease.
Thirdly, even if adopting pets from the shelter could help to recover of heart disease, people might not tend to adopt pets for the sake of health. Despite the consideration of health, people would like to the pros and cons of having pets from various angles. For instance, people who are busying with their works might have little time to spend with their pets or people who don’t like pets might not be pleased to take care of pets, thus causing another serious mental problem.
To the finale evaluations of the argument, due to the insufficient evidence, the conclusion is unwarranted, and more investigation is therefore needed.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 18 15
No. of Words: 437 350
No. of Characters: 2134 1500
No. of Different Words: 198 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.572 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.883 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.424 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 155 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 108 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 66 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 37 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.278 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.392 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.722 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.377 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.611 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.14 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 634, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...patients to recover from heart disease. Thirdly, even if adopting pets from the ...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, however, if, moreover, nonetheless, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thirdly, thus, after all, for example, for instance, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 19.6327345309 56% => More to be verbs wanted.
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.9520958084 124% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 11.1786427146 107% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 65.0 55.5748502994 117% => OK
Nominalization: 20.0 16.3942115768 122% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2214.0 2260.96107784 98% => OK
No of words: 435.0 441.139720559 99% => OK
Chars per words: 5.08965517241 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.56690854021 4.56307096286 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.55243233416 2.78398813304 92% => OK
Unique words: 206.0 204.123752495 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.473563218391 0.468620217663 101% => OK
syllable_count: 669.6 705.55239521 95% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.22255489022 166% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 19.7664670659 91% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.5654519817 57.8364921388 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 123.0 119.503703932 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1666666667 23.324526521 104% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.66666666667 5.70786347227 169% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
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: 0.34673679748 0.218282227539 159% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.121891755019 0.0743258471296 164% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.103704462646 0.0701772020484 148% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.177264881448 0.128457276422 138% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.124667216748 0.0628817314937 198% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 14.3799401198 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 48.3550499002 115% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.54 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.46 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 98.500998004 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.0 12.3882235529 105% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.9071856287 109% => 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.