Loneliness: The Silent Killer
In an article published by The New York Times, on February seventh of twenty-nineteen, author, Nicholas Bakalar writes about the science communities discovery of underlying dangers threatening to rob certain men of life. The article, Living Alone Can Be Deadly, discusses how men who live alone are at a higher risk of premature death when compared to men who do not live alone. The study evaluated the health of over three thousand men, averaging in age around sixty-three years old, for thirty-two years. The results were disturbing, regardless of external factors, such as obesity, blood pressure, and smoking, men who lived alone still were twenty-three percent more susceptible to die at a younger age. The article also brings to light the discrepancy between single men in lower socioeconomic standing compared to single men in higher socioeconomic standing; The nineteen percent of participants with university degrees or executive job decisions seem to be unaffected by the single lifestyle. Bakalar believes that to effectively counteract these effects city’s should be structured to promote social interaction.
The purpose of this article was to report the researcher’s findings and suggest a possible solution. By reporting on the research’s findings the author brings awareness to a problem not commonly talked about in an attempt to ignite more research efforts and possibly find a more permanent solution to the problem. He also does this by touching upon how socioeconomic standings affected the ability of men to live. This topic not only brings light upon the subject but calls for reform to bring men, despite their socioeconomic standing, on the same playing field as other men living alone. By acknowledging the socio economic aspect as well as suggesting the reformation of cities to increase social interaction it is clear that the author is calling for political and societal action instead of solely on physicians. This is an interesting proposal because this dramatically broadens Bakalar’s audience. Bakalar seems to be seeking reform effort towards the end of the article instead of simply reiterating the findings from the research; The best way to accomplish support for social and political change is through the people. Bakalar, arguably, is trying to persuade the constituents, and in turn, the government to change policy in order to support his cause.
Bakalar included much data from the scholarly article on which his article was based upon. Bakalar’s argument had a surplus of statistics which greatly aided the credibility of the article. Bakalar’s writing does not show any signs of bias; the article maintains a matter of fact tone to promote the author’s informative purpose. Also, the use of numerical values as supporting evidence does not allow for any bias. This was the case for most of Bakalar’s article, it was only towards the end of the article that Bakalar included his opinion on how to deal with the issue, but this did not take away from the overall impact of the article. While the article served as informative Bakalar could have been more persuasive by lengthening his argument or providing more possible solutions to the problem discussed.
References
Bakalar N. Living Alone Can Be Deadly. The New York Times. 2019 Feb 7 [accessed 2019 Feb 19]. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/well/live/living-alone-death-mortality-social-isolation.html
Loneliness: The Silent Killer Rough Draft
In an article published by The New York Times, on February seventh of twenty-nineteen, author, Nicholas Bakalar writes about the science communities discovery of underlying dangers threatening to rob certain men of life. The article, Living Alone Can Be Deadly, discusses how men who live alone are at a higher risk of premature death when compared to men who do not live alone. The study evaluated the health of over three thousand men, averaging in age around sixty-three years old, for thirty-two years. The results were disturbing, regardless of external factors, such as obesity, blood pressure, and smoking, men who lived alone still were twenty-three percent more susceptible to die at a younger age. The article also brings to light the discrepancy between single men in lower socioeconomic standing compared to single men in higher socioeconomic standing; The nineteen percent of participants with university degrees or executive job decisions seem to be unaffected by the single lifestyle. Bakalar believes that to effectively counteract these effects city’s should be structured to promote social interaction.
The purpose of this article was to report the researcher’s findings and suggest a possible solution. By reporting on the research’s findings the author brings awareness to a problem not commonly talked about in an attempt to ignite more research efforts and possibly find a more permanent solution to the problem. He also does this by touching upon how socioeconomic standings affected the ability of men to live.
Bakalar included much data from the scholarly article on which his article was based upon. Bakalar’s argument had a surplus of statistics which greatly aided the credibility of the article. Bakalar’s writing does not show any signs of bias; the article maintains a matter of fact tone to promote the author’s informative purpose. Also, the use of numerical values as supporting evidence does not allow for any bias. This was the case for most of Bakalar’s article, it was only towards the end of the article that Bakalar included his opinion on how to deal with the issue, but this did not take away from the overall impact of the article. While the article served as informative Bakalar could have been more persuasive by lengthening his argument or providing more possible solutions to the problem discussed.
