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 above argument concludes that most children born in America in next decade will live past the age of ninety on the basis of the premise that past generations have been living longer that those of earlier times. In my opinion, the argument has been stated on weak grounds. The argument has taken very strong assumptions and hence, is very much suspectical of getting attacked.
First, The argument assumes that the advances in medical technology would undermine the effects of anti-aging factors completely.These factors may get more prevalent when one crosses the age of 80. Hence there is no guarantee that the increase in life expectancy will be linear. For example, even though medical science in today's world has advanced a lot, we haven't found the cure of deadly deceases such as Parkinson's decease.
Second, Although advances in medical technology can counter the aging factors, distribution of new technology to most of the new generation is not guaranteed in the above argument. Science is filled with many examples in which lab experiments do not make it to a common man's life. It is not always science but policies that make the difference. For example, Even though developed nations are now completely rid of Polio, developing countries such as India are struggling with the decease because of policy implementation.
Third, A logical error in the argument can be found by noticing that the argument claims that new born children will live past the age of ninety.But, in its premise, the argument doesn't classify the type of
population. It might be that a large proportion of earlier generations was of immigrants and their genetics may be different than those of children who will be born in America.
Fourth, National life expectancy is an average term. Although "most" is quite near to 100%, it can be that some of the American residents live up to hundred years and others have range of ages between 70-80. This particular case indicates the average age of 90 yet doesn't conclude that most of the children born will live past the age of ninety.
The argument,in its current state, doesn't have enough premises to come to the stated conclusion. With its current form, it looks susceptical for much criticism. Adding other factors can strengthen the argument more.
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 above argument concludes that most children born in America in next decade will live past the age of ninety on the basis of the premise that past generations have been living longer that those of earlier times. In my opinion, the argument has been stated on weak grounds. The argument has taken very strong assumptions and hence, is very much suspectical of getting attacked.
First, The argument assumes that the advances in medical technology would undermine the effects of anti-aging factors completely.These factors may get more prevalent when one crosses the age of 80. Hence there is no guarantee that the increase in life expectancy will be linear. For example, even though medical science in today's world has advanced a lot, we haven't found the cure of deadly deceases such as Parkinson's decease.
Second, Although advances in medical technology can counter the aging factors, distribution of new technology to most of the new generation is not guaranteed in the above argument. Science is filled with many examples in which lab experiments do not make it to a common man's life. It is not always science but policies that make the difference. For example, Even though developed nations are now completely rid of Polio, developing countries such as India are struggling with the decease because of policy implementation.
Third, A logical error in the argument can be found by noticing that the argument claims that new born children will live past the age of ninety.But, in its premise, the argument doesn't classify the type of
population. It might be that a large proportion of earlier generations was of immigrants and their genetics may be different than those of children who will be born in America.
Fourth, National life expectancy is an average term. Although "most" is quite near to 100%, it can be that some of the American residents live up to hundred years and others have range of ages between 70-80. This particular case indicates the average age of 90 yet doesn't conclude that most of the children born will live past the age of ninety.
The argument,in its current state, doesn't have enough premises to come to the stated conclusion. With its current form, it looks susceptical for much criticism. Adding other factors can strengthen the argument more.
