“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 claims that owning a dog as pet not only reduces the incidence of heart disease in the general people, but also reduce the chances of experiencing continuing heart problems and the need for ongoing treatment. The author has come to this conclusion on the basis of a recent study reporting that the pet owners have longer and healthier lives on average than do people who own no pets. Though the claim seems plausible at the first sight, it is found to be rife with flaws and several baseless assumptions on closer inspection. The author should provide additional significant evidences in order to provide sufficient ground for the argument to stand.
First of the all, the author prematurely assumes that the report of the survey is reliable enough to make generalization for the entire people. However, the author fails to provide convincing evidence to validate the result of the study. It is possible that the study is biased: it could have included young people who have owned dogs, and old-aged people who have not owned dogs. Since young people are vital than old-aged, it is highly possible that old-aged people are likely to have more heart related problems than younger people. Further, the author overlooked the possibility of fewer heart related problems in the people who do not owned dogs, and higher heart related problems even when the people have owned dogs.
Secondly, citing the report of a recent study, the author naively assumes that owning the pets is the only reason for longer and healthier life of the people. However, this assumption falls short given the lack of evidence. Long and healthy lives of pet owners could have several seasons: it is likely that the people who own pets perform regular physical activities such as regular exercise in physical fitness club and plays different games, such as volleyball, badminton, basketball, and football. It is also possible that these people may be highly health conscious and avoid consuming unhygienic foods, such as junk, spicy, and oily foods, alcoholic beverages, cigarette, and other injurious things. The author should consider the lifestyle and feeding habit of the people before coming to the conclusion.
Thirdly, it could be true that pet owners are likely to have fewer cases of heart related problems; however, it is the presumptuous of the author to assume that people who are recovering from heart related disease will benefit from dog ownership and reduce the need of ongoing treatment. The author fails to provide reliable evidence that dog ownership reduces the chance of continuing heart problems and reduces the need of ongoing treatment in order to evaluate the argument.
Moreover, the author prematurely assumes that the publicity of adopt-a-dog program would encourage majority of the residents to adopt a dog. However, it might not be the case. People could have several reasons for not adopting dog. It is possible that the residents of the city could be financially weak to adopt a dog, or they could not have time to look after their dogs. It is also possible that people could feel allergies with the pets due to which they cannot adopt a dog. If either of the scenarios hold true, then the argument is seriously weakened.
In sum, the argument presented is highly flawed due to its reliance upon several unwarranted assumptions. The author needs to provide additional persuasive evidences in order to support the argument. Unless the author provides such convincing evidences, the argument remains highly dubious and cannot be reasonably established.
- According to a recent report cheating among college and university students is on the rise However Groveton College has successfully reduced student cheating by adopting an honor code which calls for students to agree not to cheat in their academic endeav53
- Unfortunately media tries to highlight what is sensational at the moment Society should be better served if the media reported or focused more fully on events that would ultimately have the most long lasting significance66
- Technology creates more problem than it solves
- Teacher s salary should be based on their student s academic performance62
- Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws66
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, look, may, moreover, second, secondly, so, then, third, thirdly, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.5258426966 118% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.4196629213 145% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 14.8657303371 121% => OK
Relative clauses : 22.0 11.3162921348 194% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 33.0505617978 97% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 58.6224719101 102% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2984.0 2235.4752809 133% => OK
No of words: 586.0 442.535393258 132% => OK
Chars per words: 5.09215017065 5.05705443957 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.92010537223 4.55969084622 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.54873864465 2.79657885939 91% => OK
Unique words: 251.0 215.323595506 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.428327645051 0.4932671777 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 933.3 704.065955056 133% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 13.0 4.99550561798 260% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 7.0 1.77640449438 394% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.0802750485 60.3974514979 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.36 118.986275619 100% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.44 23.4991977007 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.12 5.21951772744 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 10.2758426966 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 14.0 5.13820224719 272% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.306524048046 0.243740707755 126% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0853067997019 0.0831039109588 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.107033485904 0.0758088955206 141% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.163165792885 0.150359130593 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0966436762465 0.0667264976115 145% => OK
automated_readability_index: 14.3 14.1392134831 101% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.8420337079 99% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.54 12.1639044944 103% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.33 8.38706741573 99% => OK
difficult_words: 132.0 100.480337079 131% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 11.8971910112 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => 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.