Hi @vangiespen and others please help me out here. Please give me inputs regarding how essay is written in terms of organisation, examples, explanations etc.
PROMPT : 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.
RESPONSE: Author's suggestion that Sherwood hospital in partnership with Sherwood animal center to institute a dog-adoption program is novel in the sense it creates a win-win situation for both people as well as the animals. But, the premises on which author's recommendation is based are rife with logical fallacies.
Firstly, its important to know the reliability of the study. Author has not provided any more facts upon the nature of the people involved in the study. What if the study just involved heart patients who were pet owners? It would not make sense to extrapolate the result of the heart patients to the healthy people. Also, we are not sure how the study was conducted. Was it a simple survey or an exhaustive medical study of the people? Furthermore, author has not stated the sample size of the study. To strengthen the study, author should have provided sample size, nature of the people involved etc.
In addition to the study, author specifically points that the incidence of heart disease is lower in the the pet owners. "Lower" word is pretty vague in the sense it does not give any idea as to how much lower is the incidence of the heart disease. Maybe, the incidence of heart disease is low just by 1%. In that case, the hassle of having a pet is seriously not worth it.
Moreover, based on the unreliable study,the author claims that as adoption increases, incidence of the heart disease will become low in the general population. This claim is refutable in the way that general population can show an increase in the heart disease even when there is decrease for the pet owners. This happens because pet owners are a subset of general population.
Lastly, we need to ask the question whether people are desirous of adopting dogs. It might happen that Sherwood animal center only has stray dogs which people don't want to adopt. So, starting a program without concern for people's will can have disastrous consequences. Therefore, a proper study should have conducted to know the will and desire of people regarding the adoption program.
Adopting dogs is a noble deed indeed. It would have been an icing on the cake if author had provided enough evidences for the study. To improve the argument, author should provide us with more facts about the sample representation, size , numbers etc of the study. Additionally another study could have been conducted to know the wishes of the people regarding the adoption program. Without these evidences, the study and the author's suggestion seem to be logically baseless.
WHAT AN INTERESTING TOPIC HERE ARE MY CONTRIBUTIONS. FIRSTLY LETS ADDRESS THE ISSUE WHAT KIND OF BREEDS DO PET OWNERS HAVE BECAUSE THE DOGS WHO BACK ALOT SURE DONT REDUCE HEART DISEASES. SECONDLY ARE THEY SAYING ANY DOG COULD REDUCE HEART DISEASE BECAUSE UNRULY DOGS CAN BE A PAIN, IN OTHER TO SOLIDIFY THE AUTHORS CLAIM THE DOGS SHOULD BE TRAINED FIRST BEFORE OWNERS WITH HEART DISEASE COULD BUY THEM. FINALLY SOME PEOPLE ARE ALLERGIC TO DOGS WHAT IF THESE RECOVERING PATIENTS DEVELOP OTHER COMPLICATIONS DUE TO ALLERGIC REACTIONS FROM THESE PETS.
Turn off the Caps Lock please...
Vishal, you have a habit of using the term "etc." in the essay. You should refrain for using the term in an analytical essay because, while the word implies "and more information", it gives your essay a sense of weakness. The use of the term makes it sound like you were in a hurry to write the sentences and did not have the intention of properly wrapping up the sentence / paragraph. As long as you have provided at least 2 concrete examples in the sentence, you do not really have to use "etc." 2 examples in a properly concluded sentence has more impact in terms of your point of view when compared to sentences that end on a word filler like "etc."
With regards to your conclusion. It was fine at the start and stuck to the proper format of a GRE essay. However, you offered a personal opinion at the end when you said "Additionally another study could have been conducted...". As you know, a GRE should contain only a review of the facts provided. It is supposed to showcase you analytical writing and critical thinking skills , argument discussion, and your ability to discuss the topic based upon the information presented. You are not required to offer a personal opinion on the issue. So by adding the aforementioned information, you disregarded the rules and as such, may have affected the final grade of your essay.
Thanks @vangiespen I will take care of "etc" and refrain from expressing any personal opinion. Also, can you give some inputs on the organisation, explanations (whether they were clear and unwarranted the assumptions) and any other points that I could have mentioned to strengthen the essay?
One of the comments you could have made was with regards to the breed of dogs referred to in the study. For example, a Golden Retriever is a boisterous dog that likes to play and could grow to such large sizes that the dog could pose a health hazard to the owner. If a toy dog, such as a Shi Tzu was used, then the statement of the author may have held some merit. The dog type and size has a number of things to do with the health of the owner as well.
On another note, the author should have made representations to show the success rate of these types of programs at other dog shelters. Offering information as to the success of the program there and how many dog owners with varying illnesses adopted and benefited from the presence of dogs in their lives would have made his claims more solid and noteworthy. As it is, having only a single study result does not carry much weight due to the refutable claims the author has made.
I think that you did a pretty good job on the essay even without my additional notes regarding the possibility of improving your observations of the study. Save for a few problems with your original work, it really did work well as an analytical essay based upon the information you were given. I hope to see your continued improvement in your forthcoming essays.
Thanks @vangiespen for the further points and the encouragement!
