Hi, I am uploading an essay and would appreciate if someone could not only read through and rate it, but also help me with the best way to conclude it.
Thanks a lot in advance.
Obviously, I will give anyone who helps me out Kudos.![:)]( "Smile")
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.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The argument in question says that even though art and music have been considered to have therapeutic value for patients who suffer from mental illnesses, doctors rarely recommend them to patients who come for treatment. The argument goes on to say that by suggesting expensive procedures and drug treatments , doctors are doing a disservice to their patients and contributing to the increasing cost of health care.
The argument as written is very weak, flawed and based on numerous assumptions. I will point out a few of the assumptions,which if incorporated in the argument can make it stronger and more well reasoned than it is.
The major flaw is that the author considers that all patients suffer from similar levels of mental illness.
He assumes that the people who approach the doctors for treatment are not so mentally or physically sick that they have crossed that threshold for which music and art can do them any good. To substantiate my point, let us consider this example: A person who is seriously ill and in urgent need of medical care will be rushed to a hospital straight away ,and doctors will first try to save his life. After the initial treatment is over and the patient is out of risk, the doctors will probably advise activities like those mentioned in our argument.However, the first instinct will be to save the patient.
Extrapolating this example to our argument, we can see that in case a patient is so seriously ill that urgent medical attention and drugs are the call of the hour, then the doctors are not wrong in doing what they do. So, the author's claim is proved wrong.
Continuing with our example, I would also like to point out another assumption that the author makes,while drawing the conclusion.He assumes that the effect of drugs and music will be the same and that they are interchangeable. In cases such as the one I pointed out in the example, if the effect of music and drugs is not the same then, the argument breaks down.
At this point, I would like to ask the question -" Is the effect of music and art an added advantage to the drugs or can it treat mental disease on its own?"
If the answer to my question is YES,indicating that music in fact can treat mental illness on its own, then we see that the author's conclusion is strengthened. However, If our answer to the same question is NO,then we can see the author's conclusion break down.In this case, a mentally ill person can continue to listen to as much music as he likes or paint whichever piece of art , but the effect will be zero, without the drugs.
A person with a broken leg will need medical attention and will need drugs to boost his bone repair mechanism. True, music and art perhaps can provide him emotional support during this period, but will it actually do the job of curing the patient?
So, to conclude I believe that the basic flaw made by the author is that he simply linked one piece of evidence to another, without scratching the surface to see what actually were the underlying assumptions that he made to draw this conclusion.
I believe, if the argument were reworded in the following manner :
" 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,even with minor ailments that would not need medical attention, 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"
By adding that single line, the argument seems to be much stronger and much more well reasoned. Now, it seems that the author admits that music will not be enough on its own to cure major disease, but asserts that doctors do not prescribe music or art even for minor ailments that would otherwise need no drugs or medical attention.![]()
Thanks a lot in advance.
Obviously, I will give anyone who helps me out Kudos.
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.
YOUR RESPONSE:
The argument in question says that even though art and music have been considered to have therapeutic value for patients who suffer from mental illnesses, doctors rarely recommend them to patients who come for treatment. The argument goes on to say that by suggesting expensive procedures and drug treatments , doctors are doing a disservice to their patients and contributing to the increasing cost of health care.
The argument as written is very weak, flawed and based on numerous assumptions. I will point out a few of the assumptions,which if incorporated in the argument can make it stronger and more well reasoned than it is.
The major flaw is that the author considers that all patients suffer from similar levels of mental illness.
He assumes that the people who approach the doctors for treatment are not so mentally or physically sick that they have crossed that threshold for which music and art can do them any good. To substantiate my point, let us consider this example: A person who is seriously ill and in urgent need of medical care will be rushed to a hospital straight away ,and doctors will first try to save his life. After the initial treatment is over and the patient is out of risk, the doctors will probably advise activities like those mentioned in our argument.However, the first instinct will be to save the patient.
Extrapolating this example to our argument, we can see that in case a patient is so seriously ill that urgent medical attention and drugs are the call of the hour, then the doctors are not wrong in doing what they do. So, the author's claim is proved wrong.
Continuing with our example, I would also like to point out another assumption that the author makes,while drawing the conclusion.He assumes that the effect of drugs and music will be the same and that they are interchangeable. In cases such as the one I pointed out in the example, if the effect of music and drugs is not the same then, the argument breaks down.
At this point, I would like to ask the question -" Is the effect of music and art an added advantage to the drugs or can it treat mental disease on its own?"
If the answer to my question is YES,indicating that music in fact can treat mental illness on its own, then we see that the author's conclusion is strengthened. However, If our answer to the same question is NO,then we can see the author's conclusion break down.In this case, a mentally ill person can continue to listen to as much music as he likes or paint whichever piece of art , but the effect will be zero, without the drugs.
A person with a broken leg will need medical attention and will need drugs to boost his bone repair mechanism. True, music and art perhaps can provide him emotional support during this period, but will it actually do the job of curing the patient?
So, to conclude I believe that the basic flaw made by the author is that he simply linked one piece of evidence to another, without scratching the surface to see what actually were the underlying assumptions that he made to draw this conclusion.
I believe, if the argument were reworded in the following manner :
" 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,even with minor ailments that would not need medical attention, 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"
By adding that single line, the argument seems to be much stronger and much more well reasoned. Now, it seems that the author admits that music will not be enough on its own to cure major disease, but asserts that doctors do not prescribe music or art even for minor ailments that would otherwise need no drugs or medical attention.