Studies show that, as we’ve become more technically advanced, our health has deteriorated rapidly. Heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and virtually every major ailment are far more common today than they were thirty years ago. The primary reason for this deterioration is the sedentary lifestyle associated with today’s high-tech jobs. Clearly, our health will continue to decline as long as we persist in our technological advances.
The conclusion of this argument, “Clearly, our health will continue to decline as long as we persist in our technological advances,” rests weakly on three primary assumptions. First, it assumes that advances in medicine will not counteract the detrimental effects of a lack of exercise. Second, it requires the tacit belief that the effect of a proper diet on health is insignificant in comparison to the effects of a sedentary lifestyle. Finally, it presumes that whatever holds true for the past and present will also hold true for the future.
The argument assumes that the positive effects of regular exercise on health override any positive effects resulting from advances in medicine. As society becomes increasingly high tech, we might plausibly argue that medicine will similarly develop and advance. Nonetheless, the validity of the author’s argument depends on the idea that medicine will not advance as rapidly as technology or, at the very least, on the idea that any advance in medicine will have a relatively insignificant effect on health, compared to the effects of regular exercise. But what might happen if medicine progresses such that health care can counteract the effects of a sedentary lifestyle? Might we imagine a pill or procedure that could easily and effectively combat heart disease, diabetes, and other diseases linked to lack of exercise? If this occurs, whether our lives become more sedentary as a result of technology will not matter when it comes to our health, because medicine will offset the negative effects of a lack of exercise.
Similarly, the argument’s conclusion depends on the assumption that improvements in diet will not prevent or stave off the decline in wellness that results from working at a high-tech job. Whether it’s reasonable to expect our diets to improve as technology advances is irrelevant to this argument; the fact remains that the author assumes that diet has little to no impact on the general well-being of a person who gets no exercise. Yet a healthy diet could negate the effects of a sedentary lifestyle. In fact, if a good diet could be shown to improve one’s health, then it would be unreasonable to conclude that a sedentary lifestyle automatically leads to poor health and increased disease in everyone. There would be no easy way to show such a correlation between exercise and health. Indeed, a sedentary lifestyle coupled with a good diet might lead to good health.
The most significant assumption made by the author to arrive at the conclusion is that the past and present are reliable indicators of the future. Specifically, the author assumes that since our overall health has declined as technology has improved, this pattern will continue. Such an assumption is unwarranted; many trends reverse direction entirely or eventually cease. For example, the rapid rise and success of high-tech companies in the late ‘90s eventually came to a screeching halt, almost without warning. If the trend toward technological advancements and the sedentary lifestyles with which they are associated came to a similar halt, it would be illogical to conclude that our health would also continue to decline.
In sum, this argument relies heavily on its assumptions, perhaps too heavily. Denying any one of these assumptions results in a weakened or, in some cases, invalid conclusion. Nevertheless, the conclusion that our health is in jeopardy may in fact be true, despite its not being proven with the premises given and assumptions made by the author. To strengthen the argument, the author would need to not only address these three assumptions but also to more firmly establish a link between deteriorating health and technological advances. In the words of Hippocrates, “A wise man should consider that health is the greatest of human blessings.” An argument conclusively linking rising technology to failing health would be a strong argument indeed.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 27 15
No. of Words: 634 350
No. of Characters: 3218 1500
No. of Different Words: 282 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.018 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.076 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.822 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 257 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 202 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 135 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 80 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.481 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 9.138 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.519 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.295 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.484 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.083 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 295, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'premises'' or 'premise's'?
Suggestion: premises'; premise's
..., despite its not being proven with the premises given and assumptions made by the autho...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, if, may, nevertheless, nonetheless, second, similarly, so, then, well, for example, in fact, as a result, in some cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.6327345309 81% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 27.0 12.9520958084 208% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 19.0 11.1786427146 170% => OK
Relative clauses : 22.0 13.6137724551 162% => OK
Pronoun: 47.0 28.8173652695 163% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 87.0 55.5748502994 157% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 16.3942115768 98% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3312.0 2260.96107784 146% => OK
No of words: 634.0 441.139720559 144% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.22397476341 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.01790360848 4.56307096286 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9358325122 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 294.0 204.123752495 144% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.463722397476 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 1048.5 705.55239521 149% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 11.0 8.76447105788 126% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.67365269461 179% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.22255489022 189% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 19.7664670659 132% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.5642918838 57.8364921388 96% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.384615385 119.503703932 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.3846153846 23.324526521 105% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.61538461538 5.70786347227 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.145142387606 0.218282227539 66% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0432179538583 0.0743258471296 58% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0330638082679 0.0701772020484 47% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0875673153125 0.128457276422 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0193476528108 0.0628817314937 31% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 14.3799401198 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 48.3550499002 80% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.197005988 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.64 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 153.0 98.500998004 155% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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.