Post your essay. Get expert feedback. For free.We're trying to help students improve their writing the hard way. Do you know students who want critical essay reviews from a professor of English Literature? Click like to share. Click here to sign up and post your own essay. We offer no paid services. All reviews are completely free.
GRE Argument Essay: A Recent Study Reported That Pet Owners Have Longer, Healthier Lives - With A Free Essay Review
"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."
First of all, the author implies the link between dog ownership and lower incidence of heart disease, since the study reported dog owners tend to have a lower incidence of heart disease. Thus, the author necessarily assumes that people with or without dogs have the same health conditions, and dog owners tend to have a lower incidence of heart disease, because they have dogs; in other words, having a dog can help reduce the chance of heart disease. If the authorís assumption is proved unwarranted, people who have heart disease may think it is too noisy or too much pressure to have dogs, while most dog owners tend to have better heart conditions to begin with, so they can handle their dogs, then, the reason that dog owners have a lower incidence of heart disease is not because dogs can help reduce the chance of heart disease, instead the majorty of dog owners tend to have better health conditions or healthier hearts to begin with, and the authorís argument would be weakened.
In addition, even if it is granted that dogs can help reduce the chance of heart disease, or dogs can be used as a treatment for patients with heart disease, although it is not likely, the author also claims that encouraging patients with heart disease to adopt dogs from dog shelters can help patients recover from heart disease and reduce their need for ongoing treatment. This suggestion only makes sense based on the assumption that this treatment is applicable for every patient, or any dog can be used to help patients recovering from heart disease. If this assumption is proved to be unwarranted, and some patients with heart disease feel very upset when dogs bark, or only dogs with special training can indeed help patients recovering from heart disease, and the majority of dogs in the shelter are not trained to be used for treatment, then, in these cases, encouraging patients who cannot tolerate barking or noise to adopt these untrained dogs might make their heart disease even worse, and the authorís argument would be weakened.
To sum up, in order to evaluate the authorís argument, we need to ensure several assumptions, people tend to have a lower incidence of heart disease is because of dogs can help them recover from heart disease instead of these dog owners are healthier to begin with, and the majority of the partients are comfortable with dogs and most dogs in the shelter are trained and can be used to treat patients.
Your first sentence is inaccurate: the study concerned pet owners, not specifically dog owners. This is a significant error because one of the important assumptions of the original argument is that what is true for the average pet owner is true for the average dog owner. As for the second sentence, it's unclear to me why you say the author "assumes that people with or without dogs have the same health conditions." The last sentence of the paragraph seems to make a bit more sense but in terms of its syntax its a complete trainwreck. Break it up into two or three (or four) sentences. The same is true more or less of the final sentence of the next paragraph: it makes some sense, but itís a serious chore to get through.