ESSAY 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.
RESPONSE:
The author concludes that the doctors are doing disservice to thier patients and contributing to the rising cost of health care in the United States. The author's line of reasoning is that doctors focus almost all their attention on costly drug treatments and invasive drug treatments and rarely recommend some form of music or art therapy which have long been understood to have therapeutic effects. This argument seems weak because the author's reasoning is based on several questionable assumptions.
First of all, the author assumes that art and music therapy are as effective as costly drug treatments but provides no evidence to support this assumption. It reality, it could be possible that art and music therapy take a long time to produce the desired effects on the patient and severity of the patient's illness may be such that the patient does not have that much time left.
In addition to that assumption, the author states that doctors are doing a disservice to their patients by not recommending low cost treatments like art and music therapies. However, the doctor would be doing more of a disservice by recommending a therapy that would take more time than that a patient actually has to survive.
Another flaw in the reasoning is that the author concludes that the doctors are contributing to the rising cost of health care by not recommending art and music therapies that are cost effective, without providing any evidence to support this claim. It may be very well possible that this cause is an insignificant contributor to the rising cost where as there may be several other causes that contibute significantly to rising cost health care costs.
In conclusion, in order to strengthen the argument, the author needs to provide evidence to support his claims that art and music therapy are as effective as costly drug treatments and that doctors are contributing to the rising cost of health care by not recommending art and music therapies. Without this, it is difficult to convince me that the doctors are doing disservice to thier patients and contributing to the rising cost of health care in the United States.
Issue Essay :
“Since no business can be all things at once, companies that specialize in one product or service are more efficient than those that offer a diverse product mix.”
From your perspective, how accurate is the above statement? Support your position with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
RESPONSE:
The statement claims that since no business can be all things at once, companies that specialize in one product or service are more efficient than those that offer a diverse product mix. However, in my view, whether companies that specialize in one product or service are more effecient than those that offer a diverse product mix depends on various factors.
Primarily, in this competitive market, the company needs to differentiate itself from its competitors and one of the ways of doing this is by offering its customer a diverse product mix. For example, Timken, a world class manufacturer of bearings specialized in taper roller bearings for nearly fifty to sixty years. Its competitors offered a variety of bearings and soon Timken started losing its market share. To regain its position, it extended its product mix and started manufacturing other types of bearings and is currently a world leader in bearings.
Secondly, I do not believe that diversifying the product mix makes a company less efficient. For example, General Electric, a company that offers products ranging from aero engines to medical equipments and financial services is currently one of the most profitable companies in the world and whose products are considered to be one of the most reliable products.
However, a business without the financial capability for diversifying its products may be better off sticking to just one product or service. But a company that has enough financial resources and though no technical capability to diversify its product mix may acquire other companies that specialize in certain products the company wants to add to its product mix. So though I agree that no business can be all things at once, a company may offer a diverse product mix but outsourcing the production to other companies that specialize in such fields.
In conclusion, I believe that if a company has the financial capability to take the risk to diversify its product mix, it is a risk worth taking to gain a competitive advantage of the customers.
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.
RESPONSE:
The author concludes that the doctors are doing disservice to thier patients and contributing to the rising cost of health care in the United States. The author's line of reasoning is that doctors focus almost all their attention on costly drug treatments and invasive drug treatments and rarely recommend some form of music or art therapy which have long been understood to have therapeutic effects. This argument seems weak because the author's reasoning is based on several questionable assumptions.
First of all, the author assumes that art and music therapy are as effective as costly drug treatments but provides no evidence to support this assumption. It reality, it could be possible that art and music therapy take a long time to produce the desired effects on the patient and severity of the patient's illness may be such that the patient does not have that much time left.
In addition to that assumption, the author states that doctors are doing a disservice to their patients by not recommending low cost treatments like art and music therapies. However, the doctor would be doing more of a disservice by recommending a therapy that would take more time than that a patient actually has to survive.
Another flaw in the reasoning is that the author concludes that the doctors are contributing to the rising cost of health care by not recommending art and music therapies that are cost effective, without providing any evidence to support this claim. It may be very well possible that this cause is an insignificant contributor to the rising cost where as there may be several other causes that contibute significantly to rising cost health care costs.
In conclusion, in order to strengthen the argument, the author needs to provide evidence to support his claims that art and music therapy are as effective as costly drug treatments and that doctors are contributing to the rising cost of health care by not recommending art and music therapies. Without this, it is difficult to convince me that the doctors are doing disservice to thier patients and contributing to the rising cost of health care in the United States.
Issue Essay :
“Since no business can be all things at once, companies that specialize in one product or service are more efficient than those that offer a diverse product mix.”
From your perspective, how accurate is the above statement? Support your position with reasons and/or examples from your own experience, observations, or reading.
RESPONSE:
The statement claims that since no business can be all things at once, companies that specialize in one product or service are more efficient than those that offer a diverse product mix. However, in my view, whether companies that specialize in one product or service are more effecient than those that offer a diverse product mix depends on various factors.
Primarily, in this competitive market, the company needs to differentiate itself from its competitors and one of the ways of doing this is by offering its customer a diverse product mix. For example, Timken, a world class manufacturer of bearings specialized in taper roller bearings for nearly fifty to sixty years. Its competitors offered a variety of bearings and soon Timken started losing its market share. To regain its position, it extended its product mix and started manufacturing other types of bearings and is currently a world leader in bearings.
Secondly, I do not believe that diversifying the product mix makes a company less efficient. For example, General Electric, a company that offers products ranging from aero engines to medical equipments and financial services is currently one of the most profitable companies in the world and whose products are considered to be one of the most reliable products.
However, a business without the financial capability for diversifying its products may be better off sticking to just one product or service. But a company that has enough financial resources and though no technical capability to diversify its product mix may acquire other companies that specialize in certain products the company wants to add to its product mix. So though I agree that no business can be all things at once, a company may offer a diverse product mix but outsourcing the production to other companies that specialize in such fields.
In conclusion, I believe that if a company has the financial capability to take the risk to diversify its product mix, it is a risk worth taking to gain a competitive advantage of the customers.
