The following appeared in a medical magazine:
"Art and music have long been understood to have therapeutic effects for individuals who suffer from either physical or mental illnesses. However, most doctors rarely recommend to patients some form of art or music therapy. Instead, doctors focus almost all of their attention on costly drug treatments and invasive procedures that carry serious risks and side-effects. By focusing on these expensive procedures rather than low-cost treatments such as art and music therapy, doctors are doing a disservice to their patients and contributing to the rising cost of health care in the United States."
The author in his preceeding statement criticzes doctors for not utilizing art and music as a treatment for their patients as opposed to costly drug treatments or invasive procedures. Although the author's claim may have merit he presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions and based soley on the evidence that the author offers, we cannot accept his argument as valid.
The primary issue with the arthors argument lies with his unsubstantiated premises. Although art and music have long been understood to have theraputic effects the author fails to present any substantiated evidence to prove this fact. In addition having theraputic does not necessarily lead to a cure for the illness. The patients might well feel better after being exposed to art and music but the author fails to provide any evidence in order to show art and music are a cure for these illnesses. The author's premise the basis for his argument lack any evidentiary support and render is conclusion unacceptable.
In addition the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. The author assumes that music and art is a treatment for all mental and phsical illnessses and criticizes the doctors for using invasive procedures. The author fails to note that a number of condtions require immendiate procedures and can lead to fatal consequences if not treated immediately. For example if a patient suffers from appendicitis that is not removed immediately, this appendix can repture leading to the poison spreading through the body and possibly even lead to death. Similarly a patient with a blocked artary or suffering from a heart attack if not administered immediately with the necessary life saving medicines can lead to death.
However the author's entire argument is not without base. I am sure there are several less severe phsical and mental illnesses that can be treated with music and art. But inorder to strengthen his argument the author must present evideniary support and data to back his data and he must also prove that doctors are failing to administer these techniques to their patients.
In sum the author's illogical argument is based on several unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumption that render his conclusion invalid. If the author wishes to convince his reader he will need to restructure his argument, fix teh flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without these things his poorly reasoned argument will convince few people.
"Art and music have long been understood to have therapeutic effects for individuals who suffer from either physical or mental illnesses. However, most doctors rarely recommend to patients some form of art or music therapy. Instead, doctors focus almost all of their attention on costly drug treatments and invasive procedures that carry serious risks and side-effects. By focusing on these expensive procedures rather than low-cost treatments such as art and music therapy, doctors are doing a disservice to their patients and contributing to the rising cost of health care in the United States."
The author in his preceeding statement criticzes doctors for not utilizing art and music as a treatment for their patients as opposed to costly drug treatments or invasive procedures. Although the author's claim may have merit he presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several questionable premises and assumptions and based soley on the evidence that the author offers, we cannot accept his argument as valid.
The primary issue with the arthors argument lies with his unsubstantiated premises. Although art and music have long been understood to have theraputic effects the author fails to present any substantiated evidence to prove this fact. In addition having theraputic does not necessarily lead to a cure for the illness. The patients might well feel better after being exposed to art and music but the author fails to provide any evidence in order to show art and music are a cure for these illnesses. The author's premise the basis for his argument lack any evidentiary support and render is conclusion unacceptable.
In addition the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. The author assumes that music and art is a treatment for all mental and phsical illnessses and criticizes the doctors for using invasive procedures. The author fails to note that a number of condtions require immendiate procedures and can lead to fatal consequences if not treated immediately. For example if a patient suffers from appendicitis that is not removed immediately, this appendix can repture leading to the poison spreading through the body and possibly even lead to death. Similarly a patient with a blocked artary or suffering from a heart attack if not administered immediately with the necessary life saving medicines can lead to death.
However the author's entire argument is not without base. I am sure there are several less severe phsical and mental illnesses that can be treated with music and art. But inorder to strengthen his argument the author must present evideniary support and data to back his data and he must also prove that doctors are failing to administer these techniques to their patients.
In sum the author's illogical argument is based on several unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumption that render his conclusion invalid. If the author wishes to convince his reader he will need to restructure his argument, fix teh flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support. Without these things his poorly reasoned argument will convince few people.
