-
dream700
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 4:15 am
- Thanked: 1 times
- Followed by:1 members
AWA ESSAYS: Analyze Argument
ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in a trade publication for the insurance industry:
"Each generation of Americans has lived longer that the ones preceding it, as the national life expectancy has approached 80 years old in recent years. The progress of medical technology shows no sign of abating. Therefore, we can confidently predict that most children born in America in the next decade will live past the age of ninety."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
YOUR RESPONSE:
If the recent outbreak of Swine Flu (H1N1 virus) has anything to suggest us, it is that even with all advances in medical technology, life remains unpredictable. In just matter of days, we see thousands of death reported of the disease. The public life came to a standstill. The school, colleges, social gatherings became places to be avoided. The death toll rising all the time, bringing the national life expectancy down. With such scenario, to claim that never ending advances in medical technology will increase the national life expectancy from 80 to 90, just in a matter of a decade is a far stretched one. The given argument lacks substantial evidences and it neglects many other important factors. I will present them one by one in the coming paragraphs.
First of all, the argument is based just on the past results and it is expecting it to continue in the time to come. There may come a limit after which no substantial improvements can be made to the already well achieved results. It may be the case that the human body is on an average functions well for 80-85 years. In that case, even with all advances in medical technology the life expectancy may not rise beyond 80-85 years. We can put a person on life supporting system, but it can be done for only few days and in that condition the life looses it's very own meaning.
Second point which I would like to make is that the given argument fails to consider the other factors that might add negatively to the national life expectancy. The ongoing wars in Afganisthan and Iraq, only adds to the casulty figure. The ever increasing suicide rate in America adding to the woes. This factors can't be countered by the advances in medical technology.
Third pont, a very important one is that the author fails to mention that in which area of Medical Science the advances most prolific. For example, the death count from dieses like Breast Cancer and AIDS are ever increasing, with no proven treatment for these diseases. If the advances are for the disease in which already substantial success has been achieved then it may not add significantly to the national life expectancy.
To conclude the arguement, I believe the author needs to provide some concrete evidences and specific details to draw such a far sighted prediction.
ESSAY QUESTION:
The following appeared in a trade publication for the insurance industry:
"Each generation of Americans has lived longer that the ones preceding it, as the national life expectancy has approached 80 years old in recent years. The progress of medical technology shows no sign of abating. Therefore, we can confidently predict that most children born in America in the next decade will live past the age of ninety."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
YOUR RESPONSE:
If the recent outbreak of Swine Flu (H1N1 virus) has anything to suggest us, it is that even with all advances in medical technology, life remains unpredictable. In just matter of days, we see thousands of death reported of the disease. The public life came to a standstill. The school, colleges, social gatherings became places to be avoided. The death toll rising all the time, bringing the national life expectancy down. With such scenario, to claim that never ending advances in medical technology will increase the national life expectancy from 80 to 90, just in a matter of a decade is a far stretched one. The given argument lacks substantial evidences and it neglects many other important factors. I will present them one by one in the coming paragraphs.
First of all, the argument is based just on the past results and it is expecting it to continue in the time to come. There may come a limit after which no substantial improvements can be made to the already well achieved results. It may be the case that the human body is on an average functions well for 80-85 years. In that case, even with all advances in medical technology the life expectancy may not rise beyond 80-85 years. We can put a person on life supporting system, but it can be done for only few days and in that condition the life looses it's very own meaning.
Second point which I would like to make is that the given argument fails to consider the other factors that might add negatively to the national life expectancy. The ongoing wars in Afganisthan and Iraq, only adds to the casulty figure. The ever increasing suicide rate in America adding to the woes. This factors can't be countered by the advances in medical technology.
Third pont, a very important one is that the author fails to mention that in which area of Medical Science the advances most prolific. For example, the death count from dieses like Breast Cancer and AIDS are ever increasing, with no proven treatment for these diseases. If the advances are for the disease in which already substantial success has been achieved then it may not add significantly to the national life expectancy.
To conclude the arguement, I believe the author needs to provide some concrete evidences and specific details to draw such a far sighted prediction.
