Please rate.

[efet]

"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."

---

In the argument above, the author concludes that art and music have healing effects as much as drugs and doctors should replace drug treatment with art and music. The premise of the argument is that art and music have successfully been used to cure illnesses for long time. However, the argument is flawed because it falsely assumes that art and music could solely be used to treat patients and it assumes that art and music carry less risk compared to drug treatments.

First, the argument wrongly assumes that art and music has been used to replace drug treatment. However, the author fails to support this assumption. It is entirely possible that art and music has always been used to positively effect drug treatment. In fact, a study published in Russia in 1980 showed that art and music increased the mood of patients which increased the effects of drug treatment.

Second, the reasoning in the editorial is flawed because it mistakenly assumes drug treatments have higher risks than art and music treatments. Drugs used on patients have long, careful and regulated process of production. Yet, a study published in Nottingham Medical Magazine showed that drug production is process is ten years on average. And during this long product process drug is tested numerous times on both animals and humans. On the other hand, art and music treatment's effects are unknown to this date.

Moreover, the argument could be improved by considering similar discussion held in England 150 years ago. Notes published by Cambridge University reveals that similar discussion was held in England and Nottingham Palace compared effects of drug treatment and art and music treatment. The treatment results were similar, hence, English Empire banned drug treatment at that time.

In conclusion, the argument in the newspaper is editorial is flawed because it assumes that art and music treatment can replace drug treatment. Moreover, the argument wrongly concludes that drug treatment carries higher risks than art and music treatment.


---
Think this as a fictional story, nothing true here