-
som.kk
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:02 am
- Followed by:1 members
Hi, my GMAT is in 4 days. Please do rate my essay.
Also, feel free to point out any flaws, improvements, or suggestions.
THank yoU!
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.
Response:
The above argument incorrectly assumes that most doctors intentionally recommend 'costly drug treatments' & 'invasive procedures' to their patients, inspite of the supposed benefits of Art & music. Other factors such as the effectiveness of the method of treatment on various illnesses, the seriousness of the patient's ailment, the stability of the patient's health condition, etc, are not being considered. Also, most doctors receive their training at conventional medical schools, where little-if any-mention is made of alternative forms of therapies such as Art & music. The author is taking a huge leap of faith by stating that doctors are doing a disservice to their patients by not recommending Art & music, without taking the above mentioned factors into consideration.
One possible explanation for the supposed 'disservice' rendered by doctors could be a lack of awareness of art & music as valid forms of therapies. Most doctors complete their medical degrees from conventional schools, where-to restate a banality-the course focuses on conventional procedures, medicines and treatments. Such doctors are liable to lack awareness regarding the viability of art & music as therapies.
The author also fails to validate his assumption that art & music, and conventional medicine are comparable in terms of the time taken for providing relief. Not all patients have time on their side. Patients such as trauma victims, cases of cardiac arrest, cases of accidents, etc, require immediate attention. In most of such cases, conventional medicine is able to provide relief in a timely fashion. Furthermore, conventional medicine is able to treat life threatening diseases such as cancer, hepatitis, diabetes etc, and prolong life expectancy of patients suffering from conditions such as AIDS, certain types of cancer etc.
The third issue to be addressed is that the author`s premise that health conditions requiring invasive procedures can be adequately addressed by Art & music. Consider a blockage of an artery; such a condition requires a procedure called an Angioplasty, wherein a 'stilt' is placed inside the artery. Whether such a condition can be treated in time using art & music remains unanswered.
Also, the argument never takes into consideration the expectations that patients have of their doctors. The argument accuses doctors of prescribing 'costly' and 'risky' procedures, without considering the possibility that the patients themselves prefer conventional treatment to art & music. In such cases, a doctor has limited autonomy in deciding the course of action.
Finally, the argument fails to lend support to the claim that prescription of conventional treatments contributes to the rising cost of health care in the United States.
In conclusion, the author could strengthen this claim by citing specific examples of comparisons between conventional medicine, and art & music. For example, if art & music is able to treat illnesses with the same time frame, and effectiveness as conventional medicine, it would strengthen the author's argument for prescription of art & music to a larger number of patients. Similarly, if there was evidence that certain conditions requiring invasive procedures could not be treated using art & music, it would justify the focus of attention on conventional methods of treatment for such conditions. Without such evidence, the author fails to support his proposal, as there are too many alternative explanations for the reason most doctors focus on conventional therapies.
Also, feel free to point out any flaws, improvements, or suggestions.
THank yoU!
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.
Response:
The above argument incorrectly assumes that most doctors intentionally recommend 'costly drug treatments' & 'invasive procedures' to their patients, inspite of the supposed benefits of Art & music. Other factors such as the effectiveness of the method of treatment on various illnesses, the seriousness of the patient's ailment, the stability of the patient's health condition, etc, are not being considered. Also, most doctors receive their training at conventional medical schools, where little-if any-mention is made of alternative forms of therapies such as Art & music. The author is taking a huge leap of faith by stating that doctors are doing a disservice to their patients by not recommending Art & music, without taking the above mentioned factors into consideration.
One possible explanation for the supposed 'disservice' rendered by doctors could be a lack of awareness of art & music as valid forms of therapies. Most doctors complete their medical degrees from conventional schools, where-to restate a banality-the course focuses on conventional procedures, medicines and treatments. Such doctors are liable to lack awareness regarding the viability of art & music as therapies.
The author also fails to validate his assumption that art & music, and conventional medicine are comparable in terms of the time taken for providing relief. Not all patients have time on their side. Patients such as trauma victims, cases of cardiac arrest, cases of accidents, etc, require immediate attention. In most of such cases, conventional medicine is able to provide relief in a timely fashion. Furthermore, conventional medicine is able to treat life threatening diseases such as cancer, hepatitis, diabetes etc, and prolong life expectancy of patients suffering from conditions such as AIDS, certain types of cancer etc.
The third issue to be addressed is that the author`s premise that health conditions requiring invasive procedures can be adequately addressed by Art & music. Consider a blockage of an artery; such a condition requires a procedure called an Angioplasty, wherein a 'stilt' is placed inside the artery. Whether such a condition can be treated in time using art & music remains unanswered.
Also, the argument never takes into consideration the expectations that patients have of their doctors. The argument accuses doctors of prescribing 'costly' and 'risky' procedures, without considering the possibility that the patients themselves prefer conventional treatment to art & music. In such cases, a doctor has limited autonomy in deciding the course of action.
Finally, the argument fails to lend support to the claim that prescription of conventional treatments contributes to the rising cost of health care in the United States.
In conclusion, the author could strengthen this claim by citing specific examples of comparisons between conventional medicine, and art & music. For example, if art & music is able to treat illnesses with the same time frame, and effectiveness as conventional medicine, it would strengthen the author's argument for prescription of art & music to a larger number of patients. Similarly, if there was evidence that certain conditions requiring invasive procedures could not be treated using art & music, it would justify the focus of attention on conventional methods of treatment for such conditions. Without such evidence, the author fails to support his proposal, as there are too many alternative explanations for the reason most doctors focus on conventional therapies.
