The following appeared in the Sherwood Times newspaper.

“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 will help reduce medical costs by reducing the number of these patients needing ongoing treatment. In addition, the publicity about the program will encourage more people to adopt pets from the shelter, which will reduce the risk of heart disease in the general population.”

The above article appeared in the Sherwood Times newspaper. The arguer in the above argument wants to recommend Sherwood Hospital to form a partnership with Sherwood Animal Shelter to institute ‘adopt-a-dog ‘program. The arguer gives various reasons in support of his argument. The first reason that the arguer gives in favor of his recommendation is a recent study which shows that pet owners have longer, healthier lives than people who do not have pets. The arguer further supports his argument by mentioning that the dog owners have a lower incidence of heart disease. The second argument presented by the arguer in that the program would encourage dog ownership for patients recovering from heart disease, this will help in reducing medical cost by reducing the number of these patients needing ongoing treatment. Further, the arguer states that the publicity from the program will encourage people to adopt pets from the shelter and hence it will reduce the risk of heart disease in the general public. Although the recommendation by the arguer has a noble cause but only by adopting an animal one can not be saved from the ill effects of the disease. The arguments by the arguer are not sufficient for his recommendation to be accepted.

The first argument by the arguer is the recent study which shows that pet owners are healthier people and specially dog owners who tend to have lower incidences of heart diseases. The arguer has not mentioned the exact number of people surveyed as it is very much possible that the number of people who were surveyed was very less and they had pets and did not have any heart problem. It could be possible that the surveyed people comprised more of younger people than older generation as older people often have these problems. The arguer has also not mentioned about any other health problem of the pet owners. It is possible that these people were not having heart problems but other health problems which could instigate heart problems like high blood pressure or high cholesterol. The arguer has also not mentioned whether other pet owners had heart problems or not.

The second argument presented by the arguer is that the program would encourage people to adopt more dogs and hence they would save on their otherwise ongoing treatment’s medical cost. The arguer fails to bring into notice that it is not necessary that all patients can adopt a dog. There are a large number of people who are afraid of dogs or do not prefer pets. This program would not be effective for those patients. The arguer has also failed to mention whether or not any of the patients is allergic to dog fur or not. It is also possible that because of allergies some patients prefer not to adopt dogs.

Finally, the arguer mentions the publicity that the program will get and which would further assure general public adopting more dogs and hence it will reduce their chances of heart attack. Adopting a pet alone can not save anyone from heart diseases. It is regular exercise and good eating habits that matter a lot.

The recommendation by the arguer does not have relevant explanations therefore it should not be accepted.