-
Rezinka
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 2:39 am
- Location: New Delhi, India
- Thanked: 11 times
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."
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 argument presented above is seriously flawed because it makes many assumptions. Also, the author's conclusion is not supported by any example or any real statistics.
The author says that art and music provide therapeutic effects to individuals and that most doctors do not recommend it but she does not tell us if this effect is what is required to cure most patients. If this therapeutic effect can cure patients as well as any drug based treatment, the doctors are not justified in not using it. However, the author fails to clarify this. If most illness require drug based treatments or medical procedures and art and music will have very little effect on the health of the patient, the doctors are justified in using these procedures.
Even when the same effects may be desired as obtained from art and music, the doctors may be right in using drug based therapy. It depends on the time in which the effect is desired. Art and music provide the therapeutic effect but they do so over a period of time, not instantly. However, if there is a patient with high blood pressure which needs to be reduced instantly, an injection would be necessary. While art and music can be prescribed to such a patient in routine life to keep his blood pressure under control, in case of an illness or emergency, injection will be necessary.
The author goes too far in saying that the the doctors are doing a disservice to their patients by retorting to such services as expensive drugs that may have side-effects. If better and faster results are desired and they are obtained by taking these risks, then the doctors would be doing a service and not disservice to their patients.
As we can see, the author has made a very flawed argument based on premises that lack support. The author could have made the argument well-reasoned by including statistics of the number of cases in which art and music could have very well produced the same effects as produced by expensive drugs. The argument could have become stronger by including the cost that the U.S. could have saved by these procedures. However, before any of this is done, the author needs to make sure that only those patients are taken into account who have the time to retort to such therapy and whose illness can be cured using such therapy.
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 argument presented above is seriously flawed because it makes many assumptions. Also, the author's conclusion is not supported by any example or any real statistics.
The author says that art and music provide therapeutic effects to individuals and that most doctors do not recommend it but she does not tell us if this effect is what is required to cure most patients. If this therapeutic effect can cure patients as well as any drug based treatment, the doctors are not justified in not using it. However, the author fails to clarify this. If most illness require drug based treatments or medical procedures and art and music will have very little effect on the health of the patient, the doctors are justified in using these procedures.
Even when the same effects may be desired as obtained from art and music, the doctors may be right in using drug based therapy. It depends on the time in which the effect is desired. Art and music provide the therapeutic effect but they do so over a period of time, not instantly. However, if there is a patient with high blood pressure which needs to be reduced instantly, an injection would be necessary. While art and music can be prescribed to such a patient in routine life to keep his blood pressure under control, in case of an illness or emergency, injection will be necessary.
The author goes too far in saying that the the doctors are doing a disservice to their patients by retorting to such services as expensive drugs that may have side-effects. If better and faster results are desired and they are obtained by taking these risks, then the doctors would be doing a service and not disservice to their patients.
As we can see, the author has made a very flawed argument based on premises that lack support. The author could have made the argument well-reasoned by including statistics of the number of cases in which art and music could have very well produced the same effects as produced by expensive drugs. The argument could have become stronger by including the cost that the U.S. could have saved by these procedures. However, before any of this is done, the author needs to make sure that only those patients are taken into account who have the time to retort to such therapy and whose illness can be cured using such therapy.
