AWA ESSAY-Please Review and tell where I can improve

"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.

RESPONSE

Art and music are indeed extremely valuable to human race. In the argument author has talked about the therapeutic effects of art and music on individuals suffering from either physical or mental illnesses and has concluded that doctors are doing a disservice to their patients and contributing to the rising cost of health care in the United States by giving preference to expensive drugs. Though his claim may have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument ,based on several questionable premises and going solely with the evidence the author offers, we cannot accept his argument as valid.

The primary issue with the authors reasoning lies in his unsubstantial premises. The author simply mentions that art and music have long been understood to have therapeutic effects for individuals suffering from illness. However here he does not provide any statistical proof of his statement. Maybe if author had exemplified his premise with some real patient cases his premise would have held more value. Next premise is the focusing of doctors on costly drug treatments and invasive procedures that carry serious risks and side-effects. Here again author has not given any facts to prove that all costly drugs necessarily have serious risks and side-effects. Thus author’s premises, the basis of his argument , lack any legitimate evidentiary support and render his conclusion unacceptable.

In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. Firstly author assumes that music and art are equivalent to high priced drugs in all areas of medicine. The author does not provide any reasoning behind this assumption of his. Also he assumes that doctors have a preference for high priced and expensive treatments. Maybe for particular illness music and art are not that impactful and drugs are the only option left. Therefore author weaken his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explicitly the proofs behind the assumptions he assumes exists.

The author could have strengthened his argument by giving case studies where art and music have successfully replaced expensive procedures. Also even better would have been if he could have given examples of cases were expensive drugs could not treat a patient but art/music could .Hence ,while there are several issues with the stated argument, that is not to say that the entire argument is without base. With research and clarification he can improve his argument significantly.

In sum, the author’s illogical argument is based on unsupportive premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid. While we can take that art and music are helpful in field of medicine, accepting that doctors are doing a disservice to their patients and contributing to the rising cost of health care in the United States by giving preference to drugs and expensive procedures over art and music is difficult. If the author hopes to change his reader’s mind on the issue he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic, clearly explicate his assumptions and provide evidentiary support.