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 Mer

In the above statement, the author claims that the daily use of Ichthaid, a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil, would prevent colds and lower absenteeism. This proposal is based on the study conducted on East Meria, where fish consumption is high and people visit the doctor less frequently. While the author's argument might seem plausible, it lacks solid evidence and is based on incomplete assumptions making the claim unconvincing without further examination.
Firstly, the author assumes that high consumption of fish contributed to less frequency of visiting doctors. However, it needs to be asked in how far the consumption of fish and frequency of visiting doctors are related in their causal connection as those two factors can prove only coincidental in their relation. Furthermore, seeing a doctor less frequently does not indicates that the residents of East Maria catch less cold. It is possible that in the region there are fewer hospitals, or the quality of medical service is so low that many residents do not trust their hospitals. Thus, the author needs to provide further evidence which can guarantee a more reliable causal connection between the consumption of fish and the frequency of seeing doctors.
In addition, the author assumes that the cold is the actual reason for the absenteeism of our region. However, the author overlooks the possibility that people may not report the truth. As given reasons may not be the actual reasons, it might be another factor that can affect the degree of absenteeism. If there exist other causes for the frequent absences, preventing cold might not reduce the chance of absences. As the main purpose of the suggested action is to lower absenteeism, intending to prevent cold without careful scrutiny might not yield the desired outcome. Therefore, the author needs to bolster his argument by verifying the truthfulness of the reasons for absenteeism given by the residents.
Lastly, the author assumes unquestioningly that the consumption of Ichthaid would be identically effective as the consumption of fish in preventing colds. However, this assumption needs some careful scrutiny. First, even if the fish is effective in preventing cold, it is not surely proved which part of fish is particularly specialized for this function. If another part of fish, such as flesh or bones is proven to be effective, Ichthaid, which is derived from fish oil, would not be very successful. Secondly, it cannot be guaranteed that consuming something fresh and consuming a supplement made from it have the same result. There is a possibility that some nutrition loss occurs in the process of making a supplement from the original product. Thus, the author needs to prove that consuming fish and consuming Ichthaid have an identical effect.
In sum, the argument is not well supported and is based on incomplete assumptions. In order to bolster it, the author must provide further evidence.