argument38

zhongding1UID: 2290420

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: 414          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2007-07-27 11:07:14

At the first glance, the argument seems logical. By asserting that people who like eat fish in East Meria seldom visit the doctor for the treatment of colds, and the colds are the reason most frequently given for absences from school and work, the argument suggest to use of Ichthaid as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism. Without other alternatives that cause the people in Ease Meria seldom catch a cold and the reason which cause absenteeism, the argument can not draw the conclusion.

Are there any reasons that cause the absenteeism beyond colds? Although the colds are the reason most frequently given for absences, other reasons can do this also. It concludes that some people have their private things to do and their wives and children ware ill. Are the real reasons that cause the absence colds? In order to easily get time to care for their children or to do their private things, some people maybe lies that they were in cold. All cases that were mentioned above can give rise to absence, lower colds can not resolve the absenteeism.

Even if the colds are only real reason that causes the absenteeism, effect of Ichtahaid is questionable. Let we assumes that the fish can effectively prevent colds. Does Ichtahaid have the same effect? The argument gives no evidence to support it. It is possible that other elements in fish cause the fewer colds in East Meria, while these elements do not been derived from fish oil.

Is the assumption that high fish consumption the main reason that people visit doctor only once or twice per year? It is possible that people in East Meria have used to take medicine when they were colds instead of visiting doctors. And the people in East Meria are highly healthy, they seldom catch cold whatever they eat fish or not. Does the high consumption show that the people in East Meria eat fish daily? It is possible there has a big factory that uses much fish everyday. In sum, whatever consumption of fish or seldom colds that mentioned in this argument can not represent that the lower colds was caused by eating fish.

It is obvious that the information in this argument can not help the arguer to draw his conclusion. If the study was made that included the effect of fish to heal cold, considered the other reason that caused the absences, we maybe will find the best way to avoid absenteeism.