A recent study reported that pet owners have longer, healthier lives on average than do people who own no pets. Specifically, dog owners tend to have a lower incidence of heart disease. In light of these findings, Sherwood Hospital should form a partnership with Sherwood Animal Shelter to institute an adopt-a-dog program. The program would encourage dog ownership for patients recovering from heart disease, which should reduce these patients’ chance of experiencing continuing heart problems and also reduce their need for ongoing treatment. As a further benefit, the publicity about the program would encourage more people to adopt pets from the shelter. And that will reduce the incidence of heart disease in the general population.
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.
The author here makes several assumptions that are either quite questionable or, at the very least, irrelevant to the argument. First, he assumes that a dog is less likely to suffer from heart disease than a person not owning a pet. However, dogs often suffer from the exact same conditions that afflict humans. Obesity and exposure to toxins in the environment are two of the most common factors that lead to heart disease in dogs. Furthermore, the breed of dog has little bearing on whether or not the dog will develop heart disease; smaller dogs are more likely to develop certain types of heart conditions than larger dogs are. Furthermore, while it is true that a dog’s lifespan may be lengthened by owning a pet, there is no evidence to suggest that this has any impact on heart disease. A dog living an active, healthy lifestyle and free of stress is as likely, if not more so, to avoid a heart attack than an older, sedentary dog. Additionally, there is no evidence to suggest that owning a dog reduces a person’s chance of developing heart disease.
In addition to these questionable assumptions, the author makes several conclusions based on them that are generally unsupported by his premise. First, he suggests that an adopt-a-dog program would reduce the need for ongoing treatment. However, there is simply no evidence that a pet makes any difference at all to whether a person suffers from heart disease. It is not as if a dog can prevent a heart attack from occurring or can treat heart disease once it occurs. Second, the author states that an adopt-a-dog program would help reduce the incidence of heart disease in the general population. While it’s true that owning a dog may encourage a person to exercise more and lead a healthier lifestyle, there is no evidence to suggest that this has any impact on the incidence of heart disease. Perhaps the author should evaluate the impact of an adopt-a-dog program on the number of people who would adopt pets from the shelter, rather than on the general incidence of heart disease.
In conclusion, this argument is far too flawed and uncertain to warrant serious consideration. Evidence from research studies on pet ownership is inconclusive, and any conclusions drawn about heart disease and dog ownership are based on questionable assumptions and conclusions.