-
jekyll12345
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 5:42 am
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:
The author's prediction that most children born in America in the next decade will live past the age of 90 is ill-founded. The author has made this prediction based on the premise that each generation of Americans so far has outlived the generation preceding it, as the national life expectancy has approached 80 recently, and one of the reasons for this increase in life expectancy cited by him is the progress of medical technology.( However, this causal relationship between medicine and increased life expectancy is only implied and not explicitly established by the author)
Though the his prediction may come true, the author has presented a poorly reasoned argument, based on questionable premises and assumption, and based solely on the evidences presented, the argument cannot be accepted as a valid one.
The primary issue is with the premise, the basis of the argument.
Firstly, the author has made a generic statement that the present generation has outlived its preceding generation, and evidence cited for this is only the increased life expectancy. The author has not provided any numbers to illustrate the veracity of his statement. Maybe the life expectancy has gone up, but how many are able to lead a healthy life till the age of 80 or more. Do the octagenerian outnumber the octagenrian of the previous generation? Or is it just a small percentage that manages to live upto 80 or more, but a major percentage dies in mid-50s. Statistics would have helped the author strengthen this fact, that an increase in life expectancy implies that more people are living upto 80 years of age. Also, there is no clarity that- even if there is high percentage of people who are able to cross/reach the 80 mark, they are leading a healthy life-style and are not bed-ridden or are on life-support systems.
Secondly, the author says that progress of medical technology is going to continue.
There are multiple issues with this statement. To begin with, the author has not established the link between medical science and medicine being an enabler for longer life expetancy, and generations outliving the previous one. Medicine has indeed helped us eradicate and fight deadly diseases but it is not the only reason for life expectancy to go up. There can be many other reasons, like a healthy lifestyle, better surroundings.
Furthermore, he has made this statement based on the assumtion that our knowledge pool is going to grow, and people would still be interested in pursuing medical research. And even if they do, there is no gurantee that there will be medical breakthroughs, and cure for life-threatening diseases would be found.
Thus, by leaving his premises unsubstantiated, the author has rendered his argument weak.
The secondary issue is with the unsupported assumtions the author has made to conclude, children born in the nest decade will live past the age of ninety.
He has assumed that the living conditions will continue to improve instead of deteriorating. He has conveniently ignored the possible occurrences of natural calamities which are even capable of washing away the entire human race from the face of planet earth.
However, by assuming that the conditons will only become better, the author hasn't provided any examples or evidences to show how they will become better, and how they are better now, when compared to the previous generations. Without any clarity on this, we cannot confidently say that the next generation would live upto the age of 90.
Infact, the current generation of netizens are referred to as couch potatoes and lazy when compared to their fore-fathers, who used to be hardworking and capable of much more physical work than the present generation. If the similar traits are passed on to the next generation, then the author's conclusion seems doubtful.
Hence to avoid these questions, the author should have made his argument airtight, by providing facts and figures that x% of the population is above 80, and are healthy.
Though the argument is not completely off the mark, providing legitimate evidentiary support to his premises, and supporting the assumptions would make the argument more persuasive and convincing.
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:
The author's prediction that most children born in America in the next decade will live past the age of 90 is ill-founded. The author has made this prediction based on the premise that each generation of Americans so far has outlived the generation preceding it, as the national life expectancy has approached 80 recently, and one of the reasons for this increase in life expectancy cited by him is the progress of medical technology.( However, this causal relationship between medicine and increased life expectancy is only implied and not explicitly established by the author)
Though the his prediction may come true, the author has presented a poorly reasoned argument, based on questionable premises and assumption, and based solely on the evidences presented, the argument cannot be accepted as a valid one.
The primary issue is with the premise, the basis of the argument.
Firstly, the author has made a generic statement that the present generation has outlived its preceding generation, and evidence cited for this is only the increased life expectancy. The author has not provided any numbers to illustrate the veracity of his statement. Maybe the life expectancy has gone up, but how many are able to lead a healthy life till the age of 80 or more. Do the octagenerian outnumber the octagenrian of the previous generation? Or is it just a small percentage that manages to live upto 80 or more, but a major percentage dies in mid-50s. Statistics would have helped the author strengthen this fact, that an increase in life expectancy implies that more people are living upto 80 years of age. Also, there is no clarity that- even if there is high percentage of people who are able to cross/reach the 80 mark, they are leading a healthy life-style and are not bed-ridden or are on life-support systems.
Secondly, the author says that progress of medical technology is going to continue.
There are multiple issues with this statement. To begin with, the author has not established the link between medical science and medicine being an enabler for longer life expetancy, and generations outliving the previous one. Medicine has indeed helped us eradicate and fight deadly diseases but it is not the only reason for life expectancy to go up. There can be many other reasons, like a healthy lifestyle, better surroundings.
Furthermore, he has made this statement based on the assumtion that our knowledge pool is going to grow, and people would still be interested in pursuing medical research. And even if they do, there is no gurantee that there will be medical breakthroughs, and cure for life-threatening diseases would be found.
Thus, by leaving his premises unsubstantiated, the author has rendered his argument weak.
The secondary issue is with the unsupported assumtions the author has made to conclude, children born in the nest decade will live past the age of ninety.
He has assumed that the living conditions will continue to improve instead of deteriorating. He has conveniently ignored the possible occurrences of natural calamities which are even capable of washing away the entire human race from the face of planet earth.
However, by assuming that the conditons will only become better, the author hasn't provided any examples or evidences to show how they will become better, and how they are better now, when compared to the previous generations. Without any clarity on this, we cannot confidently say that the next generation would live upto the age of 90.
Infact, the current generation of netizens are referred to as couch potatoes and lazy when compared to their fore-fathers, who used to be hardworking and capable of much more physical work than the present generation. If the similar traits are passed on to the next generation, then the author's conclusion seems doubtful.
Hence to avoid these questions, the author should have made his argument airtight, by providing facts and figures that x% of the population is above 80, and are healthy.
Though the argument is not completely off the mark, providing legitimate evidentiary support to his premises, and supporting the assumptions would make the argument more persuasive and convincing.
