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 author argues that heart disease can be reduced by ownership of a dog. While the argument may have some merit, it is not cogent enough due to a number of unstated assumptions. The assumptions must be addressed with substantial evidence in order to support the argument. If the assumptions remain unaddressed, then the argument is unwarranted and completely falls apart.
Firstly, the author implies that people who do not own a pet do not live longer and healthier lives. The author provides evidence of a study that reported pet owners living longer and healthier lives. Perhaps, this may be veritable. However, it could be that the pet owners of the study are also very athletic and active people. On the other hand, respondents may have strong genes passed down from generations of ancestors who lived longer lives. Furthermore, if the confounds of the study were not addressed, then the evidence would not support the assumption, since other underlying factors can contribute to longer and healthier lives. Therefore, the author must elucidate a randomized study of people who do and do not own pets and one that eliminates other influencing factors that may falsifie results. If not, the argument cannot be supported having a pet would lead to healthier lives.
Additionally, the author assumes that only dog ownership will reduce heart disease and ongoing treatment. However, the assumption is unaddressed since no substantial evidence indicates that heart disease and ongoing treatment is reduced by dog ownership alone. Heart disease can be reduced by alterations in diet and engaging in physical exercise. Additionally, heart disease may be more of a genetic predisposition that requires medication. Therefore, the author must provide evidence of a study that shows heart disease patients with reduced levels and treatment by dog ownership alone. If not, then the assumption would deem fallacious and hold no merit.
Lastly, the author assumes that more pets will be adopted through publicity of the program. However, if publicity is targeted only to heart disease patients, then there can be some potential setbacks in the amount of dogs that will be adopted. Heart disease patients may not be interested in dog ownership since they may not have room or financial support to maintain a pet. Additionally, many heart disease patients may be allergic to pets or have family members that are allergic to pets. If this is the case, then many dogs would not be adopted. A change in publicity would help support the assumption that most dogs would be adopted, such as advertising to the general public. More kids and families would be apt to adopt dogs. Therefore, more dogs would be adopted. If publicity is only narrowed to a smaller audience, then there would be flaws in the assumption and not all dogs would be adopted.
In conclusion, the argument is augmented with a number of unaddressed assumptions. If the author wants to prove that heart disease can be reduced by dog ownership alone, then a coherent study that eliminated confounds and other variables would help to support the argument. Additionally, changes in publicity would help to encourage dog ownership to a wider audience versus a narrow audience of heart disease patients. Therefore, the assumptions need to be addressed with substantial evidence in order to support the argument. If not, then the argument would prove faulty and incoherent.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-07-18 | s.sim | 58 | view |
| 2022-12-21 | Christiana Longe | 57 | view |
| 2022-08-22 | Soumyadip Kar 1729 | 58 | view |
| 2022-08-06 | VINCENT DEY | 50 | view |
| 2021-08-22 | frakznd | 30 | view |
- Students should always question what they are taught instead of accepting it passively 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 developing an 54
- Some people claim that the goal of politics should be the pursuit of an ideal Others argue that the goal should be finding common ground and reaching reasonable consensus Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own p 78
- The following appeared in an article in the Grandview Beacon For many years the city of Grandview has provided annual funding for the Grandview Symphony Last year however private contributions to the symphony increased by 200 percent and attendance at the 74
- The luxuries and conveniences of contemporary life prevent people from developing into truly strong and independent individuals Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning f 60
- Claim Any piece of information referred to as a fact should be mistrusted since it may well be proven false in the future Reason Much of the information that people assume is factual actually turns out to be inaccurate Write a response in which you discus 66
Comments
Essay evaluations by e-grader
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 666, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
... be adopted, such as advertising to the general public. More kids and families would be apt to...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, lastly, may, so, then, therefore, while, in conclusion, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 35.0 12.9520958084 270% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 27.0 16.3942115768 165% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2880.0 2260.96107784 127% => OK
No of words: 558.0 441.139720559 126% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16129032258 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.86024933743 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80910534298 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 207.0 204.123752495 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.370967741935 0.468620217663 79% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 902.7 705.55239521 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 11.0 2.70958083832 406% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 32.0 19.7664670659 162% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.6574689529 57.8364921388 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.0 119.503703932 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.4375 23.324526521 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.21875 5.70786347227 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.67664670659 235% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.210376473731 0.218282227539 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0715433034166 0.0743258471296 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0711917578228 0.0701772020484 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.126829504843 0.128457276422 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0907552189851 0.0628817314937 144% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.35 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.68 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 98.500998004 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 12.3882235529 52% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 666, Rule ID: GENERAL_XX[1]
Message: Use simply 'public'.
Suggestion: public
... be adopted, such as advertising to the general public. More kids and families would be apt to...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, lastly, may, so, then, therefore, while, in conclusion, such as, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.6327345309 158% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 35.0 12.9520958084 270% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 18.0 11.1786427146 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 19.0 13.6137724551 140% => OK
Pronoun: 21.0 28.8173652695 73% => OK
Preposition: 56.0 55.5748502994 101% => OK
Nominalization: 27.0 16.3942115768 165% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2880.0 2260.96107784 127% => OK
No of words: 558.0 441.139720559 126% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16129032258 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.86024933743 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.80910534298 2.78398813304 101% => OK
Unique words: 207.0 204.123752495 101% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.370967741935 0.468620217663 79% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 902.7 705.55239521 128% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 11.0 2.70958083832 406% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 32.0 19.7664670659 162% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 22.8473053892 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 39.6574689529 57.8364921388 69% => OK
Chars per sentence: 90.0 119.503703932 75% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.4375 23.324526521 75% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.21875 5.70786347227 74% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 8.20758483034 158% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.67664670659 235% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.210376473731 0.218282227539 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0715433034166 0.0743258471296 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0711917578228 0.0701772020484 101% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.126829504843 0.128457276422 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0907552189851 0.0628817314937 144% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.6 14.3799401198 81% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 48.3550499002 112% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 12.197005988 81% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.35 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.68 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 98.500998004 115% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 6.5 12.3882235529 52% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.1389221557 79% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.