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."
YOUR RESPONSE:
In the preceding statement, the author claims that doctors are doing a disservice to their patients by focusing on costly drug treatment and invasive procedures instead of low-cost treatments such as art and music therapy.
Though his claim may well have merit, the author's claim is based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author offers, I cannot accept his argument as valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises.
By stating that art and music have long been understood to have therapeutic effects, it doesn't provide any proof that they can also heal one from his illness.
Furthermore, it has not been pointed out that art and music do not carry serious risks and side-effects.
The author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion invalid.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven.
The assumption that doctors are doing a disservice to their patients is based on the aforementioned premises that lack any legitimate evidentiary support.
The author weakens his argument by making assumptions, and failing to provide explication of the links between costly drug treatment and invasive procedures and the rising cost of health care in the United States he assumes exists.
While the author does have several key issues in his argument's premises and assumptions, that is not to say that the entire argument is without base.
If the author could provide evidentiary proof that art and music are both as effective as classical drug treatment, and are less expensive, he would strenghten his argument.
Though there are issues with the author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification, the author could increase his argument significantly.
In summary, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid.
If he truly hopes to change his reader's mind on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support.
Without these, his poorly reasoned argument is likely to convince few readers.
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."
YOUR RESPONSE:
In the preceding statement, the author claims that doctors are doing a disservice to their patients by focusing on costly drug treatment and invasive procedures instead of low-cost treatments such as art and music therapy.
Though his claim may well have merit, the author's claim is based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author offers, I cannot accept his argument as valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated premises.
By stating that art and music have long been understood to have therapeutic effects, it doesn't provide any proof that they can also heal one from his illness.
Furthermore, it has not been pointed out that art and music do not carry serious risks and side-effects.
The author's premises, the basis for his argument, lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion invalid.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven.
The assumption that doctors are doing a disservice to their patients is based on the aforementioned premises that lack any legitimate evidentiary support.
The author weakens his argument by making assumptions, and failing to provide explication of the links between costly drug treatment and invasive procedures and the rising cost of health care in the United States he assumes exists.
While the author does have several key issues in his argument's premises and assumptions, that is not to say that the entire argument is without base.
If the author could provide evidentiary proof that art and music are both as effective as classical drug treatment, and are less expensive, he would strenghten his argument.
Though there are issues with the author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification, the author could increase his argument significantly.
In summary, the author's illogical argument is based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid.
If he truly hopes to change his reader's mind on the issue, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions, and provide evidentiary support.
Without these, his poorly reasoned argument is likely to convince few readers.
