argument68终于写出一篇30分钟完成的了。。求中肯评价。。333333333QQQQQQQQ

yuandefeiyi

我发现每次写ARGU 的字数都在420 左右徘徊。。怎么办。。这样会不会影响文章质量。。
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 encourge dog ownership for patients recovering from heart disease,
which should reduce these patients' chance of experiencing continuting heart problems and also reduce
their need for ongoning treatment. As a 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 unstated assumptons of the argument.

中文提纲
1、一定是因为养宠物使这些人更健康长寿？这个调查样本是否随机？可能是 这些养宠物的人一般都是老人有更放松的生活方式，而不养宠物的人都是工作的人压力比较大。又或者这些养宠物的人来自经济发达地区有更专业的医生和先进医疗设备。
2、养狗跟低心脏病发病率有因果关系么？也许就是因为这些人没有心脏病才养狗，而另外一些人太忙了不养狗。而且，常识告诉我们，要恢复健康，病人还需要专业的建议和家人的关系和积极的心态。只是 养狗远远不够
3、即使养狗有效，大家一定会去养吗？有些人觉得自己身体健壮没有必要通过养狗预防心脏病。。而且有很多人太忙了没时间养狗。。等等。。那么作者认为 通过这个program 鼓励大家养狗显然untenable.




In this argument, the writer recommends that Sherwood Hospital should form a partnership with Sherwood Animal Shelter to institute an adopt-a-dog program. To bolster this recommendation, the author cites a recent study which shows that dog owners tend to have a lower incidence of heart disease and also points out that The program would encourage dog ownership for patients recovering from heart disease. However, the argument is rife with holes and unsubstantiated assumptions. Thus the writer's recommendation cannot convince me.

Firstly, the writer unfairly assumes that it is because of adopting pets that the people have longer and healthier lives.  However, whether  the sample of the study is random or not? Perhaps the people who adopt pets are generally the old who have relax lifestyle, while the other people who have no pets are workers who are under much work pressures. Or perhaps the latter are from the developed area, in which there are professional physician and advanced medical equipment. Thus they have more healthier lives. If this is the case , the survey is unreliable.

The assumption that adopting dog and lower incidence of heart disease have causal relationship is open to doubt. Maybe just the people who have no heart disease like to adopt dogs ,while the other people are too busy to adopting dogs. Thus, it is entirely possible the hard working result in heart disease. In addition, common sense tells us that to recover from heart disease, the patients need  the professional advice ,their families' care and positive psychology. Hence, merely adopting dog is far less enough.

Even if adopting dog do have positive effect, the writer assumes that people would buy the dog through the adopt-a-dog program. However it is unwarranted. Firstly, the people may believe that they are so strong that unnecessarily prevent the heart disease by owning dog. Secondly, they may have no time to adopt dogs due to busy working and hard learning. Without considering and ruling out these possibilities, the writer's assertion that the program would encourage dog ownership for patients recovering from heart disease is unpersuasive.

In summary, in order to make the argument to be more cogent and convincing, the author should provide the evidence that it is because of adopting pets that the people have longer and healthier lives and that adopting dog do have positive effect on curing the heart disease. The author also would testify that there would be many people adopt the dog through the program. Otherwise, I remained unconvinced the argument.

竹林中人

不错，能写到这个水平。加油