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 prompt supports the idea of collaboration of Sherwood Hospital with Sherwood Animal Shelter to constitute adopt-a-dog program in order to reduce the heart disease in the general hospital. Although the author provides good reasoning, there are a few logical flaws in the premises of the argument. These assumptions are only to be mentioned followed by necessary clarifications below here.
To begin with - the author believes that the owner of the pets do not have, the author referenced early as the ones who live longer, do have the similar body metabolism of those who are suffering in the Sherwood Hospital. What if the pet owners, the author has referenced very early in his reasoning did not suffer from any heart diseases earlier? And if they have not been exposed to any heart diseases, then how can the effectivity of their pets on their health can deduced? It might the case that the healthy people the author is talking about have long been in great health and consequently do not have to come to hospital. So, it can not be paraphrased with their pet's effiectivity on their health as their might be the same if they are not in possession of any of their pets. If this reasoning is somewhat true then the proposed collaboration might not serve the purpose greatly.
Coming to the second one - the author assumed that the all the owner of the pets and the people in the have plausibly the same lifestyle althrough their lives. But it might not necessarily true. It might be the case that the owner of the pets might have led a better lifestyle; maintaining good diets, excercising daily, taking good naps and being free from any tension and depression etc. On the other hand - the hospital admitted ones might do all the opposites of the earlier owners; leading to a poor health and ultimately they have find their way into the hospital. Saying these - it might be irrelevant to attempt any relation of the dog owenrship into the reasoning as it will have littel impact compaed to the long consequences of the earlier points mentioned. Another impotant question for the author is - how can he be so sure of that the companion of pets or dogs will remedy the heart diseases of the patients? He has not provided any evidences to prove the worth of the dogs in helping to remedy the heart diseases. Yes, he has provided analogous fact of the good health of the pet owners, but has any of them been recovered from their heart diseases; prvoding that they have any. If not then the decision will be worth of second contemplation.
The third conjecture from the author is that - believing that, owing pet dogs might help the hospitalized patients to reduce their heart problems and so will their need for ongoing treatments. The author ignored the importance of medical check-up for a patient here. What if the patient has to be under supervision 24*7 hours? What if the patient has certain type of infection that might increase in the presence of any animals? What is the guarantee that the reduction in heart problems will be considerable enough for the doctors to depend on it completely and abate the medical treatments? The answers of these question have not been properly derived from the prompt. If any of this answer is not consolidate enough then the collaboration of the hospital and the shelter house might be of no use. Apart from that - also what is the guarantee that promoting the adopting program will encourage other people to adopt pets from the shelter? It can be turend out that most of the layperson lead very healthy lives and that is why they might not think about adopting a pet as it will increase theri responsibility to take care of those pets. In those cases -the idea of the author will be grossly wrong.
So, looking at all the factors and points aforemenitioned, it can be safely said that - certain questions have to be answered with proper evidences, also with solid reasoning to come to a certain conclusion as the prompt is devoid of both of these two important elements.
- People who are the most deeply committed to an idea or policy are also the most critical of it Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In devel58
- The following appeared in a letter from the owner of the Sunnyside Towers apartment complex to its manager One month ago all the showerheads in the first three buildings of the Sunnyside Towers complex were modified to restrict maximum water flow to one t63
- All parents should be required to volunteer time to their children s schools Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing and sup58
- The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a national newspaper Your recent article on corporate downsizing in Elthyria maintains that the majority of competent workers who have lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship o58
- The following appeared as part of the Dean s newsletter The University of Wabash is considering a community service requirement for all undergraduate and graduate students We believe that the objective of any university is to produce well rounded and char60
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 761, Rule ID: OF_ANY_OF[1]
Message: Consider simply using 'of' instead.
Suggestion: of
... the same if they are not in possession of any of their pets. If this reasoning is somewh...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 783, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...not in possession of any of their pets. If this reasoning is somewhat true then th...
^^
Line 5, column 433, Rule ID: ONES[1]
Message: Did you mean 'one's'?
Suggestion: one's
... the other hand - the hospital admitted ones might do all the opposites of the earli...
^^^^
Line 5, column 538, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'found'.
Suggestion: found
... a poor health and ultimately they have find their way into the hospital. Saying the...
^^^^
Line 5, column 1195, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
... diseases; prvoding that they have any. If not then the decision will be worth of ...
^^
Line 7, column 430, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...ncrease in the presence of any animals? What is the guarantee that the reduction in ...
^^^^
Line 7, column 1156, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... take care of those pets. In those cases -the idea of the author will be grossly ...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, consequently, if, look, second, so, then, third, apart from, as to, in conclusion, talking about, to begin with, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 32.0 19.5258426966 164% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 27.0 12.4196629213 217% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.3162921348 150% => OK
Pronoun: 55.0 33.0505617978 166% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 92.0 58.6224719101 157% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3319.0 2235.4752809 148% => OK
No of words: 699.0 442.535393258 158% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.74821173104 5.05705443957 94% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.14184870769 4.55969084622 113% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.60992282118 2.79657885939 93% => OK
Unique words: 284.0 215.323595506 132% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.406294706724 0.4932671777 82% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1030.5 704.065955056 146% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 6.24550561798 128% => OK
Article: 6.0 4.99550561798 120% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 29.0 20.2370786517 143% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.1600201597 60.3974514979 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 114.448275862 118.986275619 96% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.1034482759 23.4991977007 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.86206896552 5.21951772744 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 7.80617977528 90% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 10.2758426966 165% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.211555473156 0.243740707755 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0616547471845 0.0831039109588 74% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.059367765066 0.0758088955206 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.124060747279 0.150359130593 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0632608619994 0.0667264976115 95% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.0 14.1392134831 92% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 48.8420337079 114% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 10.57 12.1639044944 87% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.08 8.38706741573 96% => OK
difficult_words: 144.0 100.480337079 143% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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.