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 of the statement above believes that in order to reduce the incidence of the heart disease in the general population, it is an efficient way to encourage people to adopt pets. This conclusion is based on a recent study reporting that pet owners have longer and healthier lives than do people who have no pets. The author takes several assumptions for granted to reach such a conclusion. With each assumption being potentially unwarranted, the argument cannot be tenable.

First, the author assumes that the people in the study are representative of the people of the Sherwood. As there is no evidence showing the features of the people in the study, it is highly possible that the Sherwood people are different with them. The Sherwood people might be old, fat, so much more prone to develop heart diseases, while the people in the study might be young and healthy. It is also possible that the people of the Sherwood are genetically prone to develop heart diseases, then, with or without pets they would have such incidence of heart diseases.

Secondly, even if the people of Sherwood would benefit from having the dogs as the people in the survey do, the author hastily assumes that those who have pets would lesser need their treatments. In no place of the argument the author provided any evidence that having dogs would also have a progressive function on the treatment of those who were already developed such diseases.

Thirdly, the author assumes that with prompting an adopt-a-dog program, people would come and adopt pets for themselves. It is possible that the program fails to encourage people to adopt any dog. People might have their reason why not to have pets. It is possible that people have allergies to pets, the cost of caring a pet might be high, and the time and responsibility demanded to care pets, all can preclude people from having dogs.

Finally, even if all the assumptions are veritable, when the author predicts reduction in the heart diseases in the future, he/ she fails to consider there may be other factors that can overshadow the advantages of having a dog. It is possible that the lifestyle of the pet owners makes them vulnerable to heart diseases. The fats, the stress of work, the pollution in the air, unhealthy diets, all can overshadow the function of owning pets in the future. Hence the prediction cannot be valid.

In short, as discussed, the author reaches the conclusion via taking several unsupported assumptions for granted. As the argument lacks any supporting evidence, the conclusion which is based on the argument cannot be tenable.