-
becnil
- MBA Student
- Posts: 170
- Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 11:01 am
- Location: Durham, NC
- Thanked: 20 times
- Followed by:8 members
- GMAT Score:740
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 argument presented above has an inherent ambiguity in its logical conclusion. While the progress of technology may have helped in raising the national life expectancy, it is not the only factor. In this discussion, I will show how the conclusion above is based on assumptions and not on concrete evidence.
The argument correlates the rise in the national life expectancy solely to the progress of medical technology. This is not a comprehensive reasoning. While the progress of medical technology may have helped in curing a variety of diseases which were incurable before, it is not the only factor responsible for raising the life expectancy. The constant growth of life expectancy can also be related to the change in environment, better living conditions, better food etc. which became available to the Americans over the years.
The argument also assumes a straight line extrapolation of the fact that the national life expectancy in America has approached to 80 years old in recent years. As this growth is attributable to a number of factors, it is not justified to conclude that an American born in the next decade will live past the age of ninety, based solely on the fact that medical technology is showing unabated progress. Also, unexpected changes in living conditions or the environment may occur in the next decade, which may even reduce the life expectancy of the next generation Americans. So, the conclusion may not hold true in that case.
If the argument includes other factors responsible for raising the national life expectancy added to the progress of medical technology, the conclusion may be more logical. Moreover, this argument also needs more statistical data for a confident prediction of the future life expectancy.
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 argument presented above has an inherent ambiguity in its logical conclusion. While the progress of technology may have helped in raising the national life expectancy, it is not the only factor. In this discussion, I will show how the conclusion above is based on assumptions and not on concrete evidence.
The argument correlates the rise in the national life expectancy solely to the progress of medical technology. This is not a comprehensive reasoning. While the progress of medical technology may have helped in curing a variety of diseases which were incurable before, it is not the only factor responsible for raising the life expectancy. The constant growth of life expectancy can also be related to the change in environment, better living conditions, better food etc. which became available to the Americans over the years.
The argument also assumes a straight line extrapolation of the fact that the national life expectancy in America has approached to 80 years old in recent years. As this growth is attributable to a number of factors, it is not justified to conclude that an American born in the next decade will live past the age of ninety, based solely on the fact that medical technology is showing unabated progress. Also, unexpected changes in living conditions or the environment may occur in the next decade, which may even reduce the life expectancy of the next generation Americans. So, the conclusion may not hold true in that case.
If the argument includes other factors responsible for raising the national life expectancy added to the progress of medical technology, the conclusion may be more logical. Moreover, this argument also needs more statistical data for a confident prediction of the future life expectancy.
