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 partnersh

The given argument uses a recent study in suggesting a relation between owing a pet and having lower incidence of heart disease. Based on the study the argument is suggesting a new program for adopting dogs by patients, in the hope to reduce the chance of getting future heart problems. Also, the arguemnt goes in length to advocating adopting pets from shelter in redcuing the incidence of heart disease in future. Most of the suggestions are based on the single study and lacks any further evidence in supporting the suggestion.

The study claims that of the pet owners, mostly the ones who owned the dogs had lower incidence of heart diseases. In claiming so, the argument assumes that the only reason behind the lower incidence is owing a dog. While animals are known for their role in reducing stress and anxiety, the role they play in the reducing the chance of heart disease hasn’t been properly explained. Also, it is well known that people with good physical activity have a lower chance of getting heart problems. It could have been the case that people who had dogs, had the habit of taking them for walks twice a day, which resulted in good physical activity. While dogs would have had a role in this case, but they won’t be helpful if the owners didn’t take them for a walk and benefit from the physical activity which resulted out of it.

Secondly, the argument suggests a new program called adopt-a-dog program by which it advocates adoption of dogs by patients recovering from heart disease. Here, the argument is making an assumption that owning dogs by recovering patients, will be helpful in reducing the chance of getting heart problems in future. While the study suggests that there was lower incidence of heart disease in people owning dogs, it never explicitly stated that owning dogs while recovering from heart disease will reduce future heart problems. Also, it suggests that this would reduce the need for their ongoing treatment. This is another claim which isn’t supported with any evidence which makes it doubtful.

Finally, the argument claims that publicity of the program will encourage more pople adopt pets from shelter and this will lower the incidence of heart problems in general population. Here the argument assumes that the program will reach all the general population and everyone will be willing to own a pet. First, not everyone is a pet person. Even if there is a real correlation between owning a dog and reduction in incidence of heart disease, for this to happen people should be willing to adopt pets. And, on top of that the impact of something that is happening locally, might not be great on the global scale.

With all these stated, the argument is highly bent on its single evidence and trying to make bigger claims from this single study. As a whole, the suggestion doesn’t make sense as it doesn’t have enough evidences in supporting its claim. Thus before proceeding with the implementation of the program and publicizing it carefult ananlysis is needed.