My first essay

Much better in my opinion. Keep practicing though and make sure you finish in 20 minutes (5 minutes to brainstorm/outline before starting and 5 minutes for final editing...) So write 500 words in 20 minutes and make sure you leave enough time for editing.

Good luck

Thanks a lot for your effort Today I tried another one. Do you think I did better this time?

Topic
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.

My Essay
The given argument states that doctors are doing a disservice to their patients and contributing to increasing costs of health care in the United states because because they focus on expensive drug treatments and invasive procedures instead of art or music therapy. This conclusion is based on the premise that Art and music are said to have therapeutic effects on people who suffer from physical or metal illnesses. While this might in fact be true, some of the underlying assumptions need to be questioned and additional evidence is needed to support the claim.

First, the author argues that music and art have been understood to have therapeutic effects. That does not mean that art and music really have those effects, but that people believe that this is the case. The author fails to provide evidence to support this claim. Moreover, even if music and art have positive effects on people who suffer from some kind of illness, these therapeutic methods will not necessarily work for everyone. Most of the costly drug treatments, however, are proven to work on many individuals and may, therefore, be the preferred method of many doctors.

Second, the author assumes that music and art treatments are cheaper than drug treatments and invasive procedures. Not only does he fail to support this thesis with evidence but also does he not mention hidden costs. Examples for these hidden costs include additional expenses that occur, if art and music therapies do not work, and increasing expenses of drug treatments caused by the fact that the drug company sells fewer drugs and wants to remain profitable.

Third, the arguments doesn't account for the patient, one of the most important factors in medicine. The patient is the one who needs the treatment and has to live with its consequences. For many patients alternative treatments, such as music or art, might seem too experimental and they might, therefore, prefer drug treatments. The author doesn't give any information about the patients' preferences. So, claiming that the doctors do a disservice to their patients is a big claim that might not only be wrong but also damaging for the doctors.

In conclusion, the given argument is weakened by the lack of evidence to support the assumptions and claims. It may, in fact, be true that the above-mentioned alternative forms of treatment work, but in order to verify this, we need more information about the effects and the underlying functions of the illnesses an the treatments.

Thanks again for motivating me! I really struggle with the 30 minute limit which doesn't leave enough time to prove-read the essay.

The following is the most recent essay I wrote.

What do you think?

Topic
The following appeared in a trade publication for the insurance industry:

“Each generation of Americans has lived longer than the ones preceding it, as the national life expectancy has approached 80 years old in recent years. The progress of medical technology shows no sign of abating. Therefore, we can confidently predict that most children born in America in the next decade will live past the age of ninety.”

Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.

Essay
The argument claims that one could confidently predict that most children born in America in the next ten years will live past the age of ninety because every generation of Americans has lived longer than the ones preceding it. The argument is based on the premise that the progress of medical technology is not abating. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. Moreover, it relies on assumptions that are not supported by evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.

First, the argument claims that life expectancy heavily depends on the progress of medical technology. Even if that were true, the author fails to account for several other factors that influence life expectancy. Despite advancements in medical technology, life expectancy is, for instance, certain to decrease in the event of war or a natural catastrophe. Without a throughout analysis of the different factors that contribute to life expectancy, the argument remains flawed.

Second, the argument readily assumes that past development is a good predictor for future development. Clearly, the increasing life expectancy of former generations is not directly correlated to the life expectancy of future generations. Based on the authors assumption, life expectancy is expected to never stop to increase. This conclusion, however, fails to mention that there might, in fact, be a certain age in one's life where the human body is not capable of getting older anymore. In order to strengthen the argument, it is necessary to provide evidence that this age does not exist or can be extended to infinity.

Third, the argument fails to distinguish between life expectancy and the real age of individuals. Life expectancy refers to the average expected age at death. This means, that even in a country with a life expectancy of ninety years, roughly fifty percent of the population will not reach the age of ninety. Therefore, concluding that most children born in the next decade will live past the age of ninety is false.

Finally, the argument provides certain numbers and measures without providing evidence that justifies them. The author claims, for instance, that the life expectancy is 80 years today and will be at a certain level in the future. Moreover, the argument claims that medical technology is advancing, yet fails to provide evidence for this advancement.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and therefore unconvincing. Some of the underlying assumptions are not supported by evidence and the author fails to mention certain key factors. Without additional evidence, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.