Argument187 7.27

heartleadingUID: 2850897

TOPIC: ARGUMENT187 - The following appeared as part of an article in a health magazine.

"A new discovery warrants a drastic change in the diets of people living in the United States. Two scientists have recently suggested that omega -3 fatty acids (found in some fish and fish oils) play a key role in mental health. Our ancestors, who ate less saturated fat and more polyunsaturated fat, including omega -3 fatty acids, were much less likely to suffer from depression than we are today. Moreover, modern societies-such as those in Japan and Taiwan-that consume large quantities of fish report depression rates lower than that in the United States. Given this link between omega -3 fatty acids and depression, it is important for all people in the United States to increase their consumption of fish in order to prevent depression."

The argument that People in America increasing the consumption can prevent depression seems logical. However, when reasoning the conclusion based on a unreliable report, the argument fails to consider other explanations.

First of all, the argument assumes that our ancestors who were much less likely to suffer from depression is because the omega-3 fatty. Unfortunately, it is not the case. First, is it any evidence to support that our ancestors are less possible to get depression? Does it the disease exist to be representative of depression?
It is entirely possible that there were the disease amount to the depression currently in our ancestors, but it failed to write down as evidence. Secondly, even if our ancestors were indeed less likely to get the depression, the argument still be questionable. The argument unwarrantedly contribute the low possible depression to the only omega-3 fatty. It is possible the case that now the food taken too much addition lead to the depression, while to our ancestors all the food is natural. It is also possible the case that the faster speed of life is the key role in depression, compared with our ancestors.
Thirdly, is the lower depression really because the more polyunsaturated fat? In other words, it is likely the case that now people with higher depression is because the too much saturated fat rather than the polyunsaturated fat. More details about the comparison between our ancestors and our life are needed to support the assumption.

The argument fails to consider other possibilities of the lower rates, compared with America, of depression in societies such as Japan and Taiwan. It is possible that the other alternatives bring out American higher rates of depression. Such alternatives included the diet habits, the races, and the weather. Besides, it is also possible that the report from American is nearer to the reality, while other countries not. That's to say, although the higher rates as reported, the really rates may lower than other countries. Thus, concrete comparison and the evidence to substantiate the reliability of report are necessary to solidify the argument.

In conclusion, the argument based on some comparisons seems warranted. However, omitting so many evidence about the difference between we and our ancestors, American between other low-depression countries, the conclusion is obviously unacceptable.