-
adilka
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 9:28 am
- Location: Canada
- Thanked: 1 times
- GMAT Score:700
ESSAY QUESTION:
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."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The author of the article attempts to make an argument that doctors often ignore art and music as a potential treatment option for physical and mental illnesses instead choosing to concentrate on more conventional and more expensive drug treatment, thus contributing to the rise of US health care costs overall. Even though the logic might have some merit, the author fails to address a few important points and assumptions that weaken the argument.
First, the author makes an assumption that the effectiveness of treatment with art and music is comparable to that of drug treatment. No evidence is presented in the article to suggest that art and music provide a similar effect on curing the illness and are thus equal alternatives to drug treatment options.
Second, even if the reader takes for granted the assumption of the effectiveness of these non-traditional treatment options, the author still fails to mention the long-term effect of such treatment. Albeit conventional drugs, as author points out, may have long term side effect affecting a patient, art and music, on the other hand, might well have no lasting positive effect on the patient at all and propose only a temporary, or at best complementary therapeutic effects. Expanding on the long-term effectiveness of art and music as a treatment option as compared to drugs will help the author solidify the argument.
Third, the author makes a very broad statement at the end regarding the rising cost of US health care without providing the data regarding the contribution of mental illness' related costs to the overall spending on health care. If such illnesses constitute only a small percentage of overall health care costs, the idea that switching from drugs to alternative methods may help reduce the costs of the overall health care falls apart. In addition, there is no mention of the cost of art and music as compared to conventional drugs. After all, quality artwork cost may be well in the millions. The cost which is potentially higher than that of drugs.
Overall, even though the author's point may deserve consideration, author's reasoning fails to successfully convince the reader of the validity of the proposed switch from conventional drugs to art and music by refusing to address some significant details.
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."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The author of the article attempts to make an argument that doctors often ignore art and music as a potential treatment option for physical and mental illnesses instead choosing to concentrate on more conventional and more expensive drug treatment, thus contributing to the rise of US health care costs overall. Even though the logic might have some merit, the author fails to address a few important points and assumptions that weaken the argument.
First, the author makes an assumption that the effectiveness of treatment with art and music is comparable to that of drug treatment. No evidence is presented in the article to suggest that art and music provide a similar effect on curing the illness and are thus equal alternatives to drug treatment options.
Second, even if the reader takes for granted the assumption of the effectiveness of these non-traditional treatment options, the author still fails to mention the long-term effect of such treatment. Albeit conventional drugs, as author points out, may have long term side effect affecting a patient, art and music, on the other hand, might well have no lasting positive effect on the patient at all and propose only a temporary, or at best complementary therapeutic effects. Expanding on the long-term effectiveness of art and music as a treatment option as compared to drugs will help the author solidify the argument.
Third, the author makes a very broad statement at the end regarding the rising cost of US health care without providing the data regarding the contribution of mental illness' related costs to the overall spending on health care. If such illnesses constitute only a small percentage of overall health care costs, the idea that switching from drugs to alternative methods may help reduce the costs of the overall health care falls apart. In addition, there is no mention of the cost of art and music as compared to conventional drugs. After all, quality artwork cost may be well in the millions. The cost which is potentially higher than that of drugs.
Overall, even though the author's point may deserve consideration, author's reasoning fails to successfully convince the reader of the validity of the proposed switch from conventional drugs to art and music by refusing to address some significant details.
