The arguer proposes that new apartment buildings should be constructed with as few elevato
rs as possible. The reason cited by the arguer for this proposal is that people’s health a
nd longevity can be increased by carrying out a reasonable amount of daily exercise like u
tilizing stairs for coming and going from one’s apartment. The arguer further cites the fi
ndings of two recent studies to bolster the recommendation made. The first study has concl
uded that people who live in buildings that do not have elevators outlive those who live i
n buildings that have elevators and stairs. The second study has concluded that elderly pe
ople residing in buildings with elevators make twice as many visits to the doctor as those
made by the people who stay in buildings that do not have elevators. However, a close inv
estigation reveals that these two studies accomplish little towards supporting the recomme
ndation made by the arguer.Firstly, both the studies make no mention of the number of floo
rs in the buildings that were a part of the studies. It is likely that the number of floor
s in the buildings where there were no elevators were very less as compared to the buildin
gs with elevators. Hence, the less number of stairs would probably make no contribution to
the recommended daily exercise routine. Therefore, the health of the people residing in t
he buildings without elevators probably was not affected in any way by the usage of stairs
. On the other hand, it is likely that the number of floors in the buildings with elevator
s is so high that it is not possible to use the stairs at all, especially for the people r
esiding in the upper floors. Using the stairs may actually lead to fatigue and breathlessn
ess, especially for the elderly people. Therefore, without information about the number of
floors in the buildings that are being compared, it would be highly unjustified to conclu
de that utilizing the stairs is providing health benefits and longevity.Secondly, by makin
g the sweeping statement that new apartments should not have elevators, the arguer complet
ely ignores the problems that will be encountered in transporting commodities and luggage
from the ground floor to the upper floors. Baby prams, people in wheelchairs, bulky luggag
e, small children etc. will all require elevators to reach their destinations. Utilizing t
he stairs would be very tiring for the people who need to come and go to their apartments
frequently during the day. Therefore, the recommendation to avoid constructing buildings w
ith elevators is largely unwarranted.Thirdly, linking the health related problems of peopl
e residing in two different buildings with no information about their financial status, li
ving conditions, age etc. is unjustified. The people who are living longer or are making l
esser trips to the doctor may be because of their living conditions and financial status t
hat allow them to have a nutritious diet and take good care of their health. Also, it is l
ikely that the healthier set of people is younger than the people who have poor health. Mo
reover, a trip to the doctor cannot be termed as a measure of one’s health. Probably, the
elderly people go to the doctor to get a regular check up as they are more health consciou
s than their counterparts who reside in buildings without elevators.Lastly, the arguer has
not addressed any other forms of exercise that can be effectively used without creating i
nconvenience by not constructing elevators. Walking, jogging, playing, going to the gym et
c. are all convenient forms of exercise that can be easily adopted by people for maintaini
ng a regular exercising regime. Unless, the arguer rules out the possibility of using any
of these forms of moderate exercises, it is difficult to be convinced that not constructin
g elevators is the only way to ensure that you get your daily quota of exercise. In conclu
sion, it can be seen that both the studies do little to substantiate the recommendation ma
de by the arguer as there is no concrete evidence that links these two studies to the conc
lusion arrived at by the arguer.