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 aforementioned argument is well-presented and appears to be relatively cogent at first glance: since a recent study indicates that pet owners have longer, healthier lives on average than do people who own no pets, it seems plausible to argue that owning pet will be beneficial for patients recovering from heart diseases. However, as more light is shed on the issue and more detailed facts are concerned, the unsubstantiated assumptions lead me to question the validity of the argument.

First, the author assumes that result of a recent study can be taken at face value. Since people who own pets are relatively healthier and longer lives, the author rashly believes that owning pets has yielded a myriad of benefits to the owners. However, the author should take into consider other factors that might influence pet owners’ healthier lives. For instance, it is plausible that people who are able to own pets are relatively affluent compared to those who are not able to raise pets. In such a case, pet owners would possibly have more times and resources to check and concern about their health. Consequently, they would have longer, healthier lives on average than those who do not. Therefore, more information is needed to corroborate the soundness of the study.

Another assumption the author makes is that an adopt-a-dog program will be effective to patients who are diagnosed with heart disease. Since a recent study reveals that pet owners live healthier than people who do not, the author hastily assumes that same effect will be engendered for patients who contracted heart disease. However, it should be noted that the condition of people might be different in this case. Since study did not mention pet owners are diagnosed with illness or not, it is illogical to assume that owning pet will be beneficial to cure patients who have heart disease. If this would be the case, the effectiveness of owning pets remains questionable, and therefore, the author’s assertion on an adopt-a-dog program can be weakened.

Lastly, the author assumes the credibility of the conclusion that an adopt-a-dog program will reduce the incidence of heart disease in the general population. Without further information the population’s lifestyle and habits, the author simply asserts that owning pets will reduce all the incidence of heart disease. However, it should be taken into consider that other factors can also lead to heart disease. For example, in all likelihood, people might decide to consume unhealthy food due to adverse economic situation or opt for shortening their exercise time. In such a case, although owning a dog might be helpful, people may continue to be diagnosed with heart disease. Therefore, the author should verify the soundness of the conclusion by ruling out other possible factors that might cause the illness.

The argument is not sound on many grounds. To bolster the argument, the author needs to provide all the aforementioned assumptions.