The writer of this newspaper article relies on a study and a variety of assumptions to convince us of the merits of a partnership between Sherwood Hospital and Sherwood Animal Shelter. A cursory inspection reveals a number of poor assumptions and hasty misinterpretations of the available data. The writers most troublesome error comes from his apparent interpretation of the recent study which suggests that pet owners live longer lives, and that dog owners in particular have a lower incidence of heart disease. The obvious rebuttal is that this may simply be a case of correlation without causation, or reverse causation. In other words, are pet owners healthier because they own pets, or do they own pets because they are healthier? We have no evidence to indicate what the truth may be. It may be indeed that people with more free time (i.e. a third factor) have, as a consequence of the free time, more health and more of an opportunity to keep a dog. In particular, when the writer suggests that adopting dogs will reduce the ongoing medical costs of heart disease patients, we should be skeptical. Even if the study cited proves there is a salubrious effect in owning a dogwhich it most certainly does notthen we still dont know if this effect is curative or merely preventative. In other words, just because owning a dog might help prevent heart disease, it doesnt mean that it will cure heart disease once one already has developed it. Furthermore, who is to say that heart disease patients will be encouraged to participate in the adopt-a-dog program? While recovering from a serious disease, taking responsibility for an animal may be the last thing on a patients mind. We cannot assume that sufficient numbers of patients will participate in the program for it to be a success, and thus we cannot assume that the ongoing costs of treatment will be reduced. Short of seeing some evidence of the successful promotion of similar programs, we must not assume that the adopt-a-dog program will appeal to the broader community, especially if it does not succeed in lowering medical costs among the heart disease patients. Those not already suffering from a disease are often inclined, after all, to ignore the benefits of treatments that do not apply to them. Few people, for instance, obtain flu shots until it is too late, though they are widely available. In sum, the argument is weak. To improve it, the author should cite a conclusive causative and not correlative study, one which shows that owning a dog has a curative and not simply preventative effect on heart disease. The writer should also give evidence that patients would be willing to participate in the program, and that the publicity of the program would encourage people from the general population to participate. Only then will his argument for establishing the adopt-a-dog program be successful.
这篇文章的作者依赖于一项研究和各种各样的假设，以使我们相信舍伍德医院和舍伍德动物收容所之间的合作伙伴关系的优点。一个粗略的检查揭示了一些可怜的假设和草率误读的可用数据。作者最麻烦的错误来自于他对最近的研究的明显的解释，这表明宠物的主人活得更长，特别是狗主人的心脏病的发生率较低。明显的反驳是，这可能是一个简单的关联没有因果关系的情况下，或反向因果关系。换句话说，宠物主人更健康，因为他们自己的宠物，或做他们自己的宠物，因为他们是健康的？我们没有证据表明真相可能是什么。它可能是事实上，人们有更多的空闲时间，作为一个后果的空闲时间，更多的健康和更多的机会，以保持狗。特别是，当作者建议采取狗将减少心脏病患者的医疗费用，我们应该是持怀疑态度的。即使研究被证明有一个清爽的效果，拥有一只狗，它肯定不会那么我们还不知道这种影响是治疗或是预防。换句话说，仅仅因为拥有一只狗可能有助于预防心脏病，这并不意味着它将治疗心脏病，一旦它已经开发了它。此外，谁说心脏病患者将鼓励参加收养狗计划？当从严重的疾病中康复时，对动物的责任可能是病人的精神上的最后一件事。我们不能假设有足够数量的患者将参加该计划，它是一个成功，因此我们不能承担的治疗费用将减少。短的看到一些类似项目的成功推广的证据，我们必须不认为收养狗节目将吸引更广泛的社区，尤其是如果它不成功，降低医疗费用之间的心脏病患者。那些没有患上疾病的人往往会倾向于忽略治疗的好处，而不适用于他们。例如，很少有人能得到流感疫苗，直到为时已晚，尽管他们有广泛的应用。总之，论证是弱的。为了提高它，作者应该引用一个结论性的，而不是相关的研究，这表明，拥有一只狗有一个治疗，而不是简单的预防性心脏疾病的影响。作者还应提供证据表明患者愿意参与该项目，并认为该计划的宣传将鼓励人们从普通人群中参加。只有这样，他建立了收养狗计划是成功的说法。