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 author argues a program made between the Sherwood Hospital and the Sherwood Animal Shelter will result in the decrease of heart disease in the general population. I disagree with the author’s argument because the author because they assume that pet owners live longer because they own a dog, that the program will push people to adopt a dog, and that heart disease in the general public will decrease when they own a dog.
Firstly, the author provides evidence that pet owners live longer than non pet owners. I disagree with this assumption because the study did not include if any participants had any heart disease. Also, the author uses the study to talk about dogs and the study could have statistics of other pets, not just dogs. The argument would have been stronger if the author included a study that correlated solely on dog owners and the instances of heart diseases.
Secondly, it is argued that if a program was made between the Sherwood Hospital and the Sherwood Animal Shelter it would result in people adopting a dog. This assumption does not take into account the supply and demand of dogs that are currently in the shelter. For example, the number of dogs could be lacking so people would not be able to adopt a dog. On the other hand, the shelter could have a surplus of dogs resulting in the overcapacity of dogs in the shelter. Additionally, people may be allergic to dogs so they would not adopt a dog.
Lastly, the author concludes that owning a dog will result in the decrease of heart disease in the general population. I disagree with this because there are other ways that heart disease can decrease. For example, exercising can aid in the decrease of heart disease. In a study conducted at X University, people were seen to have less heart problems when running for a mile a day (2019). Also, heart disease can be reduced if one fixes their diet. In another study conducted at X University, low fat food was seen to increase the efficiency of the heart (2019).
The author states that a program between the Sherwood Hospital and Sherwood Shelter would cause people to adopt a dog and resulting in the reduction of heart disease in the general public. As it stands now, this argument is flawed. The author could have made their argument stronger if they provided studies that talked about heart disease decreasing due to owning a dog, take into consideration of the supply and demand of dogs and people with heart disease, and addressing how dogs can lead to people exercising more to lower heart disease in the general population.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 447 350
No. of Characters: 2071 1500
No. of Different Words: 160 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.598 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.633 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.365 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 150 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 105 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 60 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 26 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.35 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.416 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.6 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.377 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.577 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.102 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 382, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...pt a dog, and that heart disease in the general public will decrease when they own a dog. ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 174, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
...n the reduction of heart disease in the general public. As it stands now, this argument is fla...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, if, lastly, may, second, secondly, so, for example, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.6327345309 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 11.1786427146 98% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 13.6137724551 95% => OK
Pronoun: 28.0 28.8173652695 97% => OK
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 16.3942115768 73% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2131.0 2260.96107784 94% => OK
No of words: 447.0 441.139720559 101% => OK
Chars per words: 4.76733780761 5.12650576532 93% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.59808378696 4.56307096286 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.45437219375 2.78398813304 88% => OK
Unique words: 163.0 204.123752495 80% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.364653243848 0.468620217663 78% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 665.1 705.55239521 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 4.96107784431 141% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 19.7664670659 101% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 68.2436810262 57.8364921388 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.55 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.35 23.324526521 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.55 5.70786347227 80% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.25449101796 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 6.88822355289 145% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.67664670659 107% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.261943489823 0.218282227539 120% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0922282452069 0.0743258471296 124% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0548437288035 0.0701772020484 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.172038627861 0.128457276422 134% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0520195523342 0.0628817314937 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.2 14.3799401198 85% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.68 12.5979740519 85% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.31 8.32208582834 88% => OK
difficult_words: 73.0 98.500998004 74% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.