Hi @vangiespen and others please help me out here. Please give me inputs regarding how essay is written in terms of organisation, examples, explanations etc.
PROMPT : 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.
RESPONSE: Author's suggestion that Sherwood hospital in partnership with Sherwood animal center to institute a dog-adoption program is novel in the sense it creates a win-win situation for both people as well as the animals. But, the premises on which author's recommendation is based are rife with logical fallacies.
Firstly, its important to know the reliability of the study. Author has not provided any more facts upon the nature of the people involved in the study. What if the study just involved heart patients who were pet owners? It would not make sense to extrapolate the result of the heart patients to the healthy people. Also, we are not sure how the study was conducted. Was it a simple survey or an exhaustive medical study of the people? Furthermore, author has not stated the sample size of the study. To strengthen the study, author should have provided sample size, nature of the people involved etc.
In addition to the study, author specifically points that the incidence of heart disease is lower in the the pet owners. "Lower" word is pretty vague in the sense it does not give any idea as to how much lower is the incidence of the heart disease. Maybe, the incidence of heart disease is low just by 1%. In that case, the hassle of having a pet is seriously not worth it.
Moreover, based on the unreliable study,the author claims that as adoption increases, incidence of the heart disease will become low in the general population. This claim is refutable in the way that general population can show an increase in the heart disease even when there is decrease for the pet owners. This happens because pet owners are a subset of general population.
Lastly, we need to ask the question whether people are desirous of adopting dogs. It might happen that Sherwood animal center only has stray dogs which people don't want to adopt. So, starting a program without concern for people's will can have disastrous consequences. Therefore, a proper study should have conducted to know the will and desire of people regarding the adoption program.
Adopting dogs is a noble deed indeed. It would have been an icing on the cake if author had provided enough evidences for the study. To improve the argument, author should provide us with more facts about the sample representation, size , numbers etc of the study. Additionally another study could have been conducted to know the wishes of the people regarding the adoption program. Without these evidences, the study and the author's suggestion seem to be logically baseless.
PROMPT : 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.
RESPONSE: Author's suggestion that Sherwood hospital in partnership with Sherwood animal center to institute a dog-adoption program is novel in the sense it creates a win-win situation for both people as well as the animals. But, the premises on which author's recommendation is based are rife with logical fallacies.
Firstly, its important to know the reliability of the study. Author has not provided any more facts upon the nature of the people involved in the study. What if the study just involved heart patients who were pet owners? It would not make sense to extrapolate the result of the heart patients to the healthy people. Also, we are not sure how the study was conducted. Was it a simple survey or an exhaustive medical study of the people? Furthermore, author has not stated the sample size of the study. To strengthen the study, author should have provided sample size, nature of the people involved etc.
In addition to the study, author specifically points that the incidence of heart disease is lower in the the pet owners. "Lower" word is pretty vague in the sense it does not give any idea as to how much lower is the incidence of the heart disease. Maybe, the incidence of heart disease is low just by 1%. In that case, the hassle of having a pet is seriously not worth it.
Moreover, based on the unreliable study,the author claims that as adoption increases, incidence of the heart disease will become low in the general population. This claim is refutable in the way that general population can show an increase in the heart disease even when there is decrease for the pet owners. This happens because pet owners are a subset of general population.
Lastly, we need to ask the question whether people are desirous of adopting dogs. It might happen that Sherwood animal center only has stray dogs which people don't want to adopt. So, starting a program without concern for people's will can have disastrous consequences. Therefore, a proper study should have conducted to know the will and desire of people regarding the adoption program.
Adopting dogs is a noble deed indeed. It would have been an icing on the cake if author had provided enough evidences for the study. To improve the argument, author should provide us with more facts about the sample representation, size , numbers etc of the study. Additionally another study could have been conducted to know the wishes of the people regarding the adoption program. Without these evidences, the study and the author's suggestion seem to be logically baseless.