argument38

realrichardUID: 2273134

TOPIC: ARGUMENT38 - The following memo appeared in the newsletter of the West Meria Public Health Council.
"An innovative treatment has come to our attention that promises to significantly reduce absenteeism in our schools and workplaces. A study reports that in nearby East Meria, where fish consumption is very high, people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds. Clearly, eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. Since colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work, we recommend the daily use of Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism."
WORDS: 329          TIME: 上午 12:28:39          DATE: 2007-3-9
In this argument, the author concludes that daily use of a nutritional supplement is a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. To justify this conclusion, the author cites after eating a substantial amount of fish people can prevent cold because having a good healthy the absenteeism is lower. However, a careful scrutiny of the argument reveal multifairous logical problems, which render it unconvincing.
To begin with,  the study was not representative of the overall of people who catch a cold. Lacking such evidence, it is possible that people who catch cold were more unwilling to respond the survey than other people were. Without better evidence that the survey is statistically reliable the author claims that there are less people catch cold is unbelievable.
Secondly, the author assumes that eating amount of fish is the only explanation for preventing cold. Yet the author fails to substantiate assumption. It is entirely possible that people who catch cold was caused by wear less clothes in the winter. Perhaps people have weaken health from childhood.Or perhaps people is too old to work for factory where have heavy assignment for their employee. Without considering the other reasons the author conclude that eating fish can prevent cold is unjustifiable.
Finally, even if eating fish can prevent colds the author falsely assumes that people have a good health can decline absenteeism. For instance, perhaps that worker or student do not go school or factory is caused by the poor condition of workplace or classroom. Or perhaps people who have a good health will use the absent time to play with friend rather than real catch a cold. So the author claims that is indefensible.
To sum up, the argument is unpersuasiving as it stands. To make logically acceptable, the arthor must provide evidence that eating fish is the only condition that preveting cold. Additionally, the author must provide evidence to rule out other possible cause of the higher absenteeism.