The director of the International Health Foundation recently released this announcement:
"A new medical test that allows the early detection of a particular disease will prevent the deaths of people all over the world who would otherwise die from the disease. The test has been extremely effective in allowing doctors to diagnose the disease six months to a year before it would have been spotted by conventional means. As soon as we can institute this test as a routine procedure in hospitals around the world, the death rate from this disease will plummet."
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on the assumptions and what the implications are if the assumptions prove unwarranted.

My essay:


The announcement released by the International Health Foundation acclaims that the death rate of the particular illness will decrease when a new medical test is applied to a routine procedure in hospitals worldwide. However, the author supports his conclusion with three assumptions that, if not substantial, dramatically weaken the persuasiveness of the argument.
First of all, the director presumes, without evidence, that the new test’s ability to detect the illness before the conventional one can prevent people’s deaths from a particular disease. However, this may not be the case. Perhaps, to cure this particular disease requires the advancement in technologies, not early detection. It is possible that early detection is not a vital essence of this illness, but the ways how it is cured are more crucial. Further, it is also possible that in order to heal this sickness just the early discovery of it does not suffice, a long list of expensive and rare medicines is entailed. If either of these scenarios has merit, then the conclusion drawn from the original announcement is significantly weakened.
Second of all, the author of this announcement claims that, since the test has been significantly effective in diagnosing the illness in a period of six months to a year before the conventional methods can notice, their new medical test will stop people from dying from this disease, but this may not necessarily be true. Perhaps, in order to cure this disease, it requires at least two years to notice preceding in time that the existing means would find. In other words, just the six months to a year period of early detection may not suffice for the doctors to cure the illness and prevent patients from deaths. If the above is true, the argument does not hold the water.
Finally, if it is true that the early detection of the new test prior to the conventional one is sufficient to remedy the cases or prevent the developing of symptoms into the severe stage, the author assumes that the presence of this illness is around the world. However, this may not necessarily be true. It is possible that the disease exists just only in one particular area such as some countries in Europe or the US, then putting in this test in hospitals around the world will not be necessary and also not be able to decrease the death rate. Therefore, if the presence of this illness is not global, then the author’s assertation is invalid.
In conclusion, it is possible that an installment of the new test into hospitals’ standard procedure around the world will significantly decrease the death rate from this particular illness. However, as it stands now, the argument relies on three unfounded assumptions that render its conclusion unpersuasive at best and specious at worst. Thus, the author needs to provide the answer to three unsettle questions above and offer more evidence to support his claims.