"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."
Medical technology has made remarkable leaps over time, especially over the last century. As a consequence, over this time period, every generation has lived longer than the previous one. However, the author's prediction that the next generation will live past ninety, is based on flawed assumptions. As such, without further evidence it is quite difficult to agree with the argument.
The primary issue with the argument is the specific age prediction the author makes. She has stated that since people are now living to be 80, children born in the next decade will live past 90. This assumes a specific rate at which the life expectancy of Americans will increase over the next few decades. No scientific, or even anecdotal, evidence has actually been provided to justify this assumed rate.
The author also states that "the progress of medical technology shows no sign of abating." In essence she is making the assumption that medical technology will progress at the same pace as it has in the past. However such progress is not guaranteed. In many cases, technological progress slows down once it has reached a certain point. For example we can look at automobiles as a comparison. The average maximum speed of commercial motor cars increased in leaps and bounds during the first half of the twentieth century. But since then the maximum speed has remained quite steady.
The general direction of the author's argument however holds some merit. Medical science is progressing, and one would expect our life expectancy to increase over time. To quantify this increase the author should provide more evidence. Scientific evidence, including facts and figures of historical increases in life expectancy along with evidence of current progress in medical technology would be very beneficial to the argument.
In sum, while the author's argument gives an indication of a current trend, it is based on shaky assumptions and lacks any concrete evidence. In predicting our life expectancy with accuracy, the author has interpreted recent trends very liberally. Without better evidence it is not possible to agree with her line of reasoning.
Medical technology has made remarkable leaps over time, especially over the last century. As a consequence, over this time period, every generation has lived longer than the previous one. However, the author's prediction that the next generation will live past ninety, is based on flawed assumptions. As such, without further evidence it is quite difficult to agree with the argument.
The primary issue with the argument is the specific age prediction the author makes. She has stated that since people are now living to be 80, children born in the next decade will live past 90. This assumes a specific rate at which the life expectancy of Americans will increase over the next few decades. No scientific, or even anecdotal, evidence has actually been provided to justify this assumed rate.
The author also states that "the progress of medical technology shows no sign of abating." In essence she is making the assumption that medical technology will progress at the same pace as it has in the past. However such progress is not guaranteed. In many cases, technological progress slows down once it has reached a certain point. For example we can look at automobiles as a comparison. The average maximum speed of commercial motor cars increased in leaps and bounds during the first half of the twentieth century. But since then the maximum speed has remained quite steady.
The general direction of the author's argument however holds some merit. Medical science is progressing, and one would expect our life expectancy to increase over time. To quantify this increase the author should provide more evidence. Scientific evidence, including facts and figures of historical increases in life expectancy along with evidence of current progress in medical technology would be very beneficial to the argument.
In sum, while the author's argument gives an indication of a current trend, it is based on shaky assumptions and lacks any concrete evidence. In predicting our life expectancy with accuracy, the author has interpreted recent trends very liberally. Without better evidence it is not possible to agree with her line of reasoning.
