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 above argument makes several unwarranted assumptions. Although it cites a fair number evidences to corroborate its claim, yet it overlooks some critical factors that might potentially reduce the rationality of the argument.
To begin with, there is no mention of how consistent the study report cited in the argument, was. The lack of any reference to the focus of the study on the group and type of people surveyed, or its demographic or geographic spread, questions the credibility the study. It is possible that the study was confined to a single neighbourhood, or it might have been conducted across several states, across several cultures. In the former case, the group of people surveyed was apparently too less than the latter, and any conclusion reached by surveying the smaller group would be too putative to be accepted as definite. It was also not eucidated in the argument as to how genuinely the study was conducted or how reliable its reports are. Hence without being certain about the exact nature of the study and the measure of its coverage, one cannot assume its feasibility.
The argument further assumes that because dog owners have shown lesser incidences of heart disease, a partnership between Sherwood Hospital and Sherwood Animal Shelter should be able to address the issue of continuing heart problems of the former’s patients. However, it ignores the consideration whether the dog owners in question have other problems they might suffer from, or even whether adopting a dog is ameanable for all types of heart patients. Some of the hospital’s heart patients might simply be put off by dogs or might be terrified of any animal for that matter. In such a case, asking them to adopt a dog will do more harm than cure their problems. Besides, it is inconclusive whether dogs are not breeders of other potential diseases.
Moreover, the assumption that the adopt-a-dog program would encourage people to adopt pets from the shelter is unjustified. There can be no gurantee on the public perception of this program. If the hospital’s heart patients do not benefit from adopting a dog, there is little possibility that the public will be eager to adopt a pet. Besides, in today’s world there are bound to be competition and some negative publicity on virtually any sort of program espoused by any organisation. What if the competetors of Sherwood Hospital or Sherwood Animal Shelter jumps in for the same, and infact succeed in distancing people from the whole program? Besides, if indeed the program designed to adopt dogs is proved as successful, still there is the lingering uncertainty whether adopting any pet would be equally beneficial. In that case, what if all the dogs get adopted while say, the cats are left behind, uncared and abhored because they do no good for our health?
In conclusion, the argument fails to address several issues that leaves one dubious regarding the feasibility of the claim made. Due to the inconclusive character of its reasons, the argument appears facile and irrational. On the contrary, had it been corroborated by specific data on the cited study, the pros and cons of the suggested measure for the hospital, a thorough analysis on the future agenda, argument would have been bolstered.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 738, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...ducted or how reliable its reports are. Hence without being certain about the exact n...
^^^^^
Line 5, column 64, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...sumes that because dog owners have shown lesser incidences of heart disease, a pa...
^^
Line 5, column 455, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: Some
...anable for all types of heart patients. Some of the hospital’s heart patients might simply ...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 140, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...easibility of the claim made. Due to the inconclusive character of its reasons, t...
^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'apparently', 'besides', 'hence', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'moreover', 'regarding', 'so', 'still', 'while', 'as to', 'in conclusion', 'sort of', 'on the contrary', 'to begin with']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.234006734007 0.25644967241 91% => OK
Verbs: 0.158249158249 0.15541462614 102% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0909090909091 0.0836205057962 109% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0319865319865 0.0520304965353 61% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0319865319865 0.0272364105082 117% => OK
Prepositions: 0.132996632997 0.125424944231 106% => OK
Participles: 0.0589225589226 0.0416121511921 142% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.77935510772 2.79052419416 100% => OK
Infinitives: 0.023569023569 0.026700313972 88% => OK
Particles: 0.0016835016835 0.001811407834 93% => OK
Determiners: 0.127946127946 0.113004496875 113% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.023569023569 0.0255425247493 92% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0117845117845 0.0127820249294 92% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3278.0 2731.13054187 120% => OK
No of words: 540.0 446.07635468 121% => OK
Chars per words: 6.07037037037 6.12365571057 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.82057051367 4.57801047555 105% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.368518518519 0.378187486979 97% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.3 0.287650121315 104% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.214814814815 0.208842608468 103% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.133333333333 0.135150697306 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77935510772 2.79052419416 100% => OK
Unique words: 267.0 207.018472906 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.494444444444 0.469332199767 105% => OK
Word variations: 59.2916247167 52.1807786196 114% => OK
How many sentences: 23.0 20.039408867 115% => OK
Sentence length: 23.4782608696 23.2022227129 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.4375926123 57.7814097925 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.52173913 141.986410481 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.4782608696 23.2022227129 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.739130434783 0.724660767414 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.14285714286 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 3.58251231527 112% => OK
Readability: 53.4782608696 51.9672348444 103% => OK
Elegance: 1.91666666667 1.8405768891 104% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.187408894366 0.441005458295 42% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.101109863014 0.135418324435 75% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0583001555428 0.0829849096947 70% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.572802981024 0.58762219726 97% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.149874820568 0.147661913831 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0862802112447 0.193483328276 45% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0489107065361 0.0970749176394 50% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.409281936593 0.42659136922 96% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0360868878819 0.0774707102158 47% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.132752102991 0.312017818177 43% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.068425707808 0.0698173142475 98% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.33743842365 72% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 15.0 6.87684729064 218% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.82512315271 41% => OK
Positive topic words: 5.0 6.46551724138 77% => OK
Negative topic words: 10.0 5.36822660099 186% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.82389162562 35% => OK
Total topic words: 16.0 14.657635468 109% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 Out of 6 -- The score is based on the average performance of 20,000 argument essays. This e-grader is not smart enough to check on arguments.
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations to cover all aspects.