There is money to be made from not curing disease.
What do you think is meant by this statement? Argue to the contrary. To what extent do you agree that there is money to be made from disease?
This statement implies that the living body can not be treated as a mechanism but must be viewed as something different. One could argue, however, against this statement as the living body functions through different mechanisms i.e. pumping of the heart. With respect to medicine, it is necessary for the majority of cases to treat the living body as a mechanism. For example when diagnosing a patient’s illness, the doctor has to take into account the symptoms of the patient and various other factors. By diagnosing on the basis of symptoms, the doctor is treating the body as a predictable mechanism as the symptoms have been matched with the corresponding disease or illness.
On the other hand, however, just as we are saying that the body is predictable it can be just as unpredictable and the mechanism definition of the living body seems useless. It is apparent that the living body responds to countless stimuli. This means that the body can not be viewed as a mechanism, as a mechanism is predictable and the living body is not.
In order to resolve this apparent contradiction it is necessary to take all the arguments into consideration. By doing this we can see that in fact the conclusion of this argument lies very much between the two extremes. The living body is an extremely complex collection of mechanisms which interact and work with each other on an incomprehensibly complex level.
Furthermore these mechanisms are influenced by countless factors that present themselves in everyday life. The result of these mechanisms working together is a living body. It is necessary to underline that as yet, science has not discovered and understood all of the mechanisms by which the living body functions, therefore, I believe we can not treat the body as a mechanism until this is the case.
This response does not follow the same order as the question, but does address all aspects of the question. It explains that as the living body responds to countless stimuli, it is unpredictable and so cannot be treated as a mechanism.
The opening paragraph presents a good counterargument, that the body is composed of different mechanisms and that it is often necessary to treat the body as a predictable mechanism to be able to make a diagnosis. But the argument loses force by making unsupported assertions, e.g. that the living body is not predictable. The third paragraph does not add to the argument.
The conclusion touches on the idea that complexity and unpredictability are due to so many components interacting, but overall it is weak as it only states that, as not all of the components of the body are currently understood, we cannot treat the whole body as a predictable mechanism.