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 discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation and the argument on which it is based are reasonable. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation.
The author of the argument purportedly highlights that people should own pets like a dog in order to lead a healthy life. Indeed, keeping a pet not only can contribute greatly to the reduction of heart disease but also can expunge extra treatments. However, the premises upon which he puts his claim are fallacious. For the support of which some critical, yet ignored question need to be addressed.
The first assumption that lacks some semblance of truth and can be overtly impugned is that based on a study, people who keep a pet enjoy a happier and a longer life than those who do not. However, it does not lend credence to the argument since a question that might arise is whether keeping pets could guarantee people's health and live for more years. One point that should be considered is that this study could not be reliable and accurate owing to the fact that the author does not clearly mention people who participated in the study were young or elderly. Perhaps young people were more interested in keeping a pet, so, in this case, youth will enjoy a happier life. But maybe elderly did not like to keep a pet because of some reasons like an allergy. So, in this way, they could not lead a longer life because of their ages.
The author also asserts that adopt a dog program should entice people to keep a pet because this program will help people not to suffer from heart disease and a limited need for treatment. Although it might seem tenable at a face, it has some defects since you can always ask this question if pets are able to provide a remedy for people and cure heart disease. One of the main, if not the only, problem with the premise is that this remedy or program might not last for many years. In fact, what if people's disease again improve alongside with keeping a pet? The author does not give any information or data about what percent of people cured their diseases successfully. Moreover, this program might have some differences with human knowledge and experiences due to the fact that humans have put their efforts for many years so as to find a reliable remedy for heart disease.
Putting the two previous assumptions aside, there is still room for doubt. As set forth by the author this program will encourage people to adopt more dogs from the shelter. Nevertheless, the rationale behind this premise could be challenged owing to an unsettled question if adopt more dogs could diminish the number of diseases in general population. One point that should not go unnoticed is that maybe there is nothing to do with heart disease due to the fact that this program just wants to advertise and encourage people to adopt a dog. What if people prefer not to keep a dog and continue their remedy, which might be more accurate? There is a possibility that this program just wants to get ride off the dogs or perhaps accumulate a hoard of money, who knows?
Having scrutinized all the premises, a logical conclusion that can be drawn is that there are a number of questions having been ignored by the author while the answer of which could add to the logic of each premise.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-13 | jason123 | 66 | view |
| 2020-01-01 | samruddh_shah | 50 | view |
| 2019-11-26 | cnegus | 37 | view |
| 2019-09-25 | Depressed Soul | 55 | view |
| 2019-09-09 | krishnaprasad7 | 29 | view |
- People recognize a difference between children and adults. What makes a person an adult? 70
- tpo 33 81
- tpo 50 3
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The food we eat today is much healthier than in the past. 90
- Do you agree or disagree with the following statement People should buy things made in their own country even if they are more expensive than things made in other countries 87
Comments
Essay evaluation report
flaws:
to argue against study/survey, it is not a good idea to cast doubt on the study/survey itself. Better to accept it, but try to find loopholes behind, for example:
A recent study reported that pet owners have longer, healthier lives on average than do people who own no pets.
we may argue like:
maybe there are other reasons too for pet owners have longer, healthier lives on average. For example, these people have to walk these animals regularly and thus they have regular physical exercise which help them with their health conditions.
----------------------
there are other loopholes for study/survey in general, like:
It works for time A (10 years ago), but it doesn't mean it works for time B (nowadays).
It works for location A (a city, community, nation), but it doesn't mean it works for location B (another city, community, nation).
It works for people A (a manager), but it doesn't mean it works for people B (a worker).
It works for event A (one event, project... ), but it doesn't mean it works for event B (another event, project...).
It works for A and B, but not C.
...
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 553 350
No. of Characters: 2501 1500
No. of Different Words: 240 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.849 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.523 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.299 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 156 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 116 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 59 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 35 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.043 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.932 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.696 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.308 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.502 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.064 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 828, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...s have put their efforts for many years so as to find a reliable remedy for heart diseas...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 76, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “As” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...s aside, there is still room for doubt. As set forth by the author this program wi...
^^
Line 9, column 217, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...could add to the logic of each premise.
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, may, moreover, nevertheless, so, still, while, as to, in fact, in general
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.6327345309 112% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 25.0 12.9520958084 193% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 24.0 13.6137724551 176% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 28.8173652695 135% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 60.0 55.5748502994 108% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2560.0 2260.96107784 113% => OK
No of words: 553.0 441.139720559 125% => OK
Chars per words: 4.62929475588 5.12650576532 90% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.84932490483 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.35888307658 2.78398813304 85% => OK
Unique words: 246.0 204.123752495 121% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.444846292948 0.468620217663 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 797.4 705.55239521 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.4 1.59920159681 88% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 7.0 8.76447105788 80% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 2.70958083832 111% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 22.8473053892 105% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.7948911144 57.8364921388 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.304347826 119.503703932 93% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.0434782609 23.324526521 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.52173913043 5.70786347227 79% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.162691145705 0.218282227539 75% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.051841499078 0.0743258471296 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0380910901844 0.0701772020484 54% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.095914359752 0.128457276422 75% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0217408898288 0.0628817314937 35% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.4 14.3799401198 86% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 64.04 48.3550499002 132% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.3 12.197005988 84% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 9.87 12.5979740519 78% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.68 8.32208582834 92% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 98.500998004 102% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 12.3882235529 73% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.1389221557 104% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => 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.