- UID
- 787379
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2012-7-29
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
. 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.
提纲：1：研究可能不合理。
2：养动物和疾病少不一定有关联。并且疾病少有可能是养动物的原因，而不是养动物是疾病少的原因。
3:没有证据说明群众会相信研究结果或者作者的论断。
4：没有考虑到养宠物可能会带来的危害。
时间有点紧张，有点顾此失彼，哪个写的都不充分。。。希望各位高手批评。
Based on unfounded assumptions and dubious evidences,the arguer recommends that Sherwood Hospital should form a partnership with Sherwood Animal Shelter.To substantiate his recommendation,the arguer cites the result of a recent study,which suggest that pet owners are often healtier.In addition,the arguer assumes that the operation of this partnership would reduce heart problems in the society.Though the argument might seems to be valid at first glance,the arguer omit some substantial concerns that should be substantiated to support the recommendation.
To begin with,the arguer assumes without justification that the result of the study is valid and warranted.However,sometimes the result of the study could be fallacious and misleading.Unless the researcher sampled a suffcient number of people and chose the samples randomly across the spectrum,the result of the study might not be representative.For example, if the researcher just covered 10 people,or the research only chose the people whose heart disease is not serious,then the result could not be trusted.
Secondly,even if the study mentioned in the argument is valid,there is also some problem.The aruger observes a correlation between the behavior of pet owning and better health condition of the owners.And conclude that the former is the cause of the latter.However,there are other possible explanations for the better health condition of the pet owners.Perhaps that the pet owners cares more about their own health condition,so they exercise more.If this is true,than the arguer’s recommendation would be ungrounded.Moreover,the arguer fails to convince me that it’s the behavior of pet owning caused the better health of the owners.It could be equally possible that because they are healthy,so they have the energy to keep pets.
What’s more,the aruger makes a gratuitous assumption that the patients and the publicity would support the plan.The correlation between pet keeping and better health condition is not clear,so it’s unwarranted to predict that the patients and the publicity would believe in the study and thus support the plan.Unless the arguer could give more grounded evidence that the plan could be supported by the public,it’s possible that the plan would end up in different result.
Last but not least,even if the arguer could substantiate all the foregoing assumptions,it’s still unwarrant to assume that the plan mentioned in the recommendation would be successful.Since the arguer fails to consider possible disadvantages of adopting pets.For example,pets sometimes have special diseases that are specially harmful to human beings.So even if keeping pets could reduce the chance of getting heart disease,it’s possible that keeping pets would also bring more harmful disease that might even worsen the problem.Unless the arguer could rule out these possiblities,we cannot be supportive of the arguer’s recommendation. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-8-13 23:55:09
收藏
收藏
