Can anybody give me feedback on my essay? Would be fantastic 
The task:
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.
My response:
The author proposes that the life expectancy for children born in the next decade will be ninety years because generations of Americans lived longer than the national life expectancy of 80 years and that there seems to be no sign of abating the progress of medical technology.
This plan is fundamentally flawed, in that the argument is riddled with serious logical gaps as well as numerous unwarranted assumptions. The statement does not constitute a logical argument because it fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated.
First, the argument readily assumes that the national life exspectancy which has approched 80 years in recent years is wrong to some extent because generations of Americans lived longer than the exspected age.
The proposal fails to consider that the national life exspectancy is an average predicted in the future. Researchers who develop such a national life expectancy use several factors to evaluate the relatively unknown living conditions in the future. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly mentioned the factors which were wrong in the life exspectancy.
Second,the argument claims that the progress in medical technology shows no sign of abating.But, what if there are not enough skilled workers and doctors who are able to ensure the medical care as expected? In the argument there is no evidence that the positive development in medical technology will continue and that people can challenge that. It is not clear if it is possible to enlarge life through a continuing progress of medical technology.
Finally, what are the reasons why national life expectancy was lower than the life of generations of Americans? How is this average created? Which factors are used to evaluate the national life exspectancy? Is it possible to improve the process of medical technology? On which factors the statement that the life expectancy will be about 90 years is based? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion the argument is not sound or persuasive because it leaves out several key issues. If concluded above-mentioned reasons instead of solely making a conclusion without facts, the argument would have been more precise and convincing.
The task:
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.
My response:
The author proposes that the life expectancy for children born in the next decade will be ninety years because generations of Americans lived longer than the national life expectancy of 80 years and that there seems to be no sign of abating the progress of medical technology.
This plan is fundamentally flawed, in that the argument is riddled with serious logical gaps as well as numerous unwarranted assumptions. The statement does not constitute a logical argument because it fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated.
First, the argument readily assumes that the national life exspectancy which has approched 80 years in recent years is wrong to some extent because generations of Americans lived longer than the exspected age.
The proposal fails to consider that the national life exspectancy is an average predicted in the future. Researchers who develop such a national life expectancy use several factors to evaluate the relatively unknown living conditions in the future. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly mentioned the factors which were wrong in the life exspectancy.
Second,the argument claims that the progress in medical technology shows no sign of abating.But, what if there are not enough skilled workers and doctors who are able to ensure the medical care as expected? In the argument there is no evidence that the positive development in medical technology will continue and that people can challenge that. It is not clear if it is possible to enlarge life through a continuing progress of medical technology.
Finally, what are the reasons why national life expectancy was lower than the life of generations of Americans? How is this average created? Which factors are used to evaluate the national life exspectancy? Is it possible to improve the process of medical technology? On which factors the statement that the life expectancy will be about 90 years is based? Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion the argument is not sound or persuasive because it leaves out several key issues. If concluded above-mentioned reasons instead of solely making a conclusion without facts, the argument would have been more precise and convincing.
