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.
In the above memo, the author argues that Sherwood Hospital should form a partnership with a nearby dog shelter to institute a dog-adoption program for patients, who suffer from heart deceases. The author supports his argument based on the recent study report, which states that pet owners have longer and healthier lives on average. Furthermore, the author adds that owning a dog will help reduce experiencing continuing heart problems. However, before evaluating the author’s argument three unstated assumptions need to be answered.
Firstly, the author argues that pet owners tend to live a longer and healthier lifestyle without providing any necessitate evidence about the survey. There is a possibility that only 100 people responded to the survey. Then, one can not assume the efficacy of owing a pet based upon the very small sample size. The author does not provide any admissible evidence regarding the authenticity of the survey or how long ago the survey was conducted. If the above scenario is true then, the author’s assumption holds no water. If the author is able to provide more evidence, perhaps in the form of a statistical data chart of the lifestyle of the pet owners, then one can evaluate the author’s assumption to a certain extent.
Secondly, the author assumes that the adopt-a-dog program will encourage recovering patients to own a dog and their chances of heart problems will dwindle. The author does t provide any justifiable evidence to support his assumption that owning a dog will reduce the chance of having further heart problems. Maybe a recent study revealed that leading a healthier lifestyle is more advisable to avoid further heart problems and owning a dog has paltry effect on the patients' health. If this is not the case, then, not everyone can afford to own a dog. Perhaps the cost of the heart treatment is too exorbitant for the additional cost of the pets. If, any one of the above scenarios is true then, the author’s assumption is built unreliably. If the author is able to provide more evidence regarding the efficacy of the adopt-a-dog program, perhaps in the form of a systematic research study, then it will be possible to assess the viability of the author’s assumption.
Thirdly, the author assumes that if patients adopt dogs that will encourage more people to adopt pets from the shelter, which will reduce the incidents of heart disease in the general population. The author does not provide any warranted evidence about people's choices. Maybe most people do not like pets, then, the author's assumption is seriously unwarranted. On the other hand, perhaps a recent beseech report reveals that most people, in general, suffer from more serious heart disease which needs constant monitoring of the patients and cannot be reduced by owning a pet. If the author is able to provide more evidence regarding the choice of the general population and provide more admissible facts regarding the efficacy of owing a pet, otherwise the author's assumption is seriously weakened.
In the conclusion, the author’s argument that stands now is seriously flawed due to its reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the author is able to clarify the three questions above and offer more evidence (perhaps in the form of a systematic research study) then, it will be possible to evaluate the viability of the proposed recommendation that adopting pets from a shelter will reduce the incidence of heart disease in the general population.
| 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 |
- The following appeared in a memo from the vice president of a company that builds shopping malls around the country The surface of a section of Route 101 paved just two years ago by Good Intentions Roadways is now badly cracked with a number of dangerous 58
- The following appeared in a letter to the school board in the town of Centerville All students should be required to take the driver s education course at Centerville High School In the past two years several accidents in and around Centerville have invol 66
- The following appeared in a memo from the owner of a chain of cheese stores located throughout the United States For many years all the stores in our chain have stocked a wide variety of both domestic and imported cheeses Last year however all of the five 58
- The following appeared in the Health section of the Greenhorne Gazette Motilac is a substance that occurs naturally in the human digestive tract Many consumers of dietary supplements containing motilac report significant easing of digestive discomfort aft 66
- The main benefit of the study of history is to dispel the illusion that people living now are significantly different from people who lived in earlier times Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement 66
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 8 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 6 2
No. of Sentences: 24 15
No. of Words: 572 350
No. of Characters: 2856 1500
No. of Different Words: 217 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.89 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.993 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.652 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 227 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 166 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 120 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 67 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.833 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.471 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.378 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.378 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.113 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 466, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'patients'' or 'patient's'?
Suggestion: patients'; patient's
...d owning a dog has paltry effect on the patients health. If this is not the case, then, ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 317, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
...most people do not like pets, then, the authors assumption is seriously unwarranted. On...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 758, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'authors'' or 'author's'?
Suggestion: authors'; author's
... efficacy of owing a pet, otherwise the authors assumption is seriously weakened. In ...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, then, third, thirdly, in general, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.9520958084 116% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 11.1786427146 72% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 28.8173652695 69% => OK
Preposition: 70.0 55.5748502994 126% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2924.0 2260.96107784 129% => OK
No of words: 572.0 441.139720559 130% => OK
Chars per words: 5.11188811189 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.89045207381 4.56307096286 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.74196776188 2.78398813304 98% => OK
Unique words: 234.0 204.123752495 115% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.409090909091 0.468620217663 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 925.2 705.55239521 131% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 1.0 4.96107784431 20% => OK
Article: 13.0 8.76447105788 148% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 2.70958083832 258% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 22.8473053892 101% => OK
Sentence length SD: 62.5557529107 57.8364921388 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 121.833333333 119.503703932 102% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8333333333 23.324526521 102% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.29166666667 5.70786347227 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.67664670659 214% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.218079927729 0.218282227539 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0731571095487 0.0743258471296 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0698593609426 0.0701772020484 100% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.144787058724 0.128457276422 113% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0657608143992 0.0628817314937 105% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.6 14.3799401198 102% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 48.3550499002 100% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.197005988 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.65 12.5979740519 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.17 8.32208582834 98% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 98.500998004 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.1389221557 101% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.