Answer:
One of the conditions that she describe
was induced heart failure, which is basically a “broken heart.” She says that human doctors apparently discovered that this is true in humans around 2000. However, veterinarians had recognized this in the earlier 1970s. This just goes to show that there are more correlations between the two than people realize and could help substantially.
Do you find Dr. Natterson-Horowitz's argument that physicians can learn a lot from veterinarians convincing? What part of her argument is, to you, especially strong or
weak?
I think that her argument is extremely convincing and I definitely agree with her. Her statements about how she performed
the same functions on both humans and other animals helped portray the argument she was making but was also a strong point. I also thought that her naming the three
conditions was very strong
Explanation:
Answer:
I don't get it my guy sorry
Obsessive-compulsive because he does things at the same time
