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 author of the argument asserts that ownership of pets, in particular dogs, may help patients who recover after incidence of heart disease not to experience recur of the ailment and also reduce their necessity for ongoing treatment. Moreover, the implementation of the policy will lead to reduce the incidence of heart problems in general population. This statement is buttressed by evidence which is connected with the conclusion by several assumptions which should be carefully scrutinized in order to give a comprehensive estimation of soundness of the argument.

The first evidence which is given to us is that a recent study has discovered that pets' owners have healthier lives than do people who do not have pets. However, is it possible that other factors, which were neglected, lead to this result? For instance, it is said that owners of dogs tend to have lower chances of heart disease, perhaps these people have to walk these animals regularly and thus they have regular physical exercise which help them with their health conditions.

Furthermore, the arguer proposes to establish an adopt-a-dog program for people who have heart disease. This program supposedly should help the patients to reduce chances of repetition of the incidence of the disease. However, even if the dog's ownership is able to prevent this kind disease, perhaps it is unreasonable to assert that having a dog may alleviate or cure disease from which a person has been suffered. In fact, such characteristic of dog ownership as necessity to play with animal and walk it periodically which may help to prevent heart troubles may be extremely harmful for people who have had problems with heart. Thus the belief that ownership of a dog will inescapably help to avoid relapse of the illness or reduce need for treatment is dubious.

Finally, the arguer claims that the program will promote ownership of pets and thus the rate of heart disease in the general population should fall dramatically. But if the public take from the shelter such animals as cats, parrots and domestic hamsters, will it reduce number of heart disease in general population? The evidence given by the author has specifically stated that dog's ownership correlates with the reduction of the heart disease and consequently, if general public adopt pets other than dogs, the author's claim seems to be unsupported and prediction is unlikely.

In conclusion, the argument states that dog's ownership may help to combat heart disease but at the same time, the author has failed to demonstrate correlation between having a dog and reducing chances of continuing heart problems. Moreover, the belief that promotion of pet's ownership will reduce the average number of heart disease in population is unwarranted as well and thus it may not happen.