Jump to content
Urch Forums

Please review my argument essay


Grewal

Recommended Posts

Statistics gathered over the past three decades show that the death rate is higher among those who do not have jobs than among those with regular employment. Unemployment, just like heart disease and cancer, is a significant health issue. While many health care advocates promote increased government funding for medical research and public health care, it would be folly to increase government spending if doing so were to affect the nation's economy adversely and ultimately cause a rise in unemployment. A healthy economy means healthy citizens.

 

 

The argument suggests that the government should not increase government spending as it might affect the nation’s economy, causing a rise in unemployment to the detriment of people’s health. There are many flaws in the argument: some of them being analogous, statistical and causal. This essay will examine the assumptions on which the argument is built, prove that these are wrong and thereby illustrate that the argument’s implications are misleading.

The text mentions that the statistics have been gathered over the past three decades and show that death rate is higher among the unemployed than those with regular employment without giving details of the data sample. It fails to mention the age range of the survey participants, their background, whether it is rural or urban, and most importantly their number. It may be possible that the sample range is small, rendering the study unfeasible; or that most participants are too old; or that a majority of the participants are from villages, where it is possible that they don’t have access to good healthcare. Without these details, we cannot come to any conclusion, leave alone one that is so strong and bleak.

Moreover, the argument says that because death rate is higher among the unemployed than those with regular employment, those who will become unemployed as a result of the nation’s economy deteriorating will die soon. This seems like a causal flaw. Just because death rate among the unemployed is higher doesn’t mean that those who become unemployed will die. With this assumption proving to be wrong, the argument falls apart.

The argument also says that unemployment is a significant health issue, just like cancer and heart disease, without saying anything to justify this claim. This is an analogous flaw. The argument doesn’t give any data to reach such a strong conclusion. Without knowing the comparable statistics, how are we to be sure that unemployment is as serious a disease as heart ailment and cancer.

With the several flaws in the argument being pointed out, it is clear that the government doesn’t need to cut back on spending in the fear that it will affect the nation’s economy and eventually harm its citizens due to increase in unemployment. Without accurate statistics and enough information that justifies the argument’s conclusions, we can dismiss the argument as flawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Moreover, the argument says that because death rate is higher among the unemployed than those with regular employment, those who will become unemployed as a result of the nation’s economy deteriorating will die soon.

 

This line in the essay above is incorrect. The passage does not state that unemployed will die soon, rather it states that unemployed have a higher "death rate". Death rate is number of deaths per 1000 people in a country's population. The passage states that if the government spends more on healthcare and public health initiatives, their deficits will increase which leads to adverse economical conditions and thereby causes an increase in unemployment. This part mentioned in the argument (or passage) is fallacious because government deficit increment does not necessarily imply increase in unemployment. People can find jobs in the private sector enterprises and government can invite foreign investment (or atleast waive barriers to easy trade) to create more jobs in the country.

 

We could also mention in the second last paragraph in the above essay that vague language has been used in the passage. Higher death rate does not explicitly indicate how high. Is it a difference of 5% or 1%? Both instances, in a nation's context, would mean different things. 5% could be more conclusive and decisive whereas 1% will not be.

 

Overall, I feel the content was good. However, sentence structures could be improved and introduction of the essay could have been better.

On the positive side, there were no spelling mistakes and grammatical errors

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To invalidate the survey, we could include another paragraph that would have the following points -

 

1. We need to examine whether the surveyed population was a representative sample of the country's population. How was the survey conducted, split of unemployed vs employed people in the survey participants and lastly, what kind of impact was seen on their health and was it observed during their lifetime or only when they were approaching their death?

2. There are lot of things that happen in a person's life in three decades. Is it correct to say that unemployment was the reason that expedited their death?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The passage does not state that unemployed will die soon. It says that unemployed have a higher "death rate". Death rate is the number of deaths per 1000 people.

 

Overall I feel that the content was good. Introduction could be better, sentence structures could be better. No spelling mistakes or grammatical errors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...