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 wi

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.