ARGUMENT TASK"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 o

The argument states that Ichthaid - a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil - must be used to prevent colds and consequently reduce absenteeism in schools. It is based on the assumption that the usage will be effective, as people from nearby East Meria have high fish consumption and less reporting for the treatment of colds. Moreover, it is also based on the premise that the common reason given for absence is cold. This argument, at first sight, seems relevant and plausible. But, on careful scrutiny, it is found to be rife with holes and assumptions. A thorough analysis must be performed on the argument before a decision can be taken.

First, there are data fallacies existing in this argument which prevent the readers from getting a clear picture. The source for 'innovative' treatment is not cited. So, we cannot be sure of the reliability and performance guarantee of the treatment. The author compares the study report conducted in nearby East Meria to his place of consideration. But, the year in which study was conducted is not published. Moreover, it might be the case that East Meria and the author's considered place may not have similar conditions. For example, people of the author's town may be allergic to fishes or the climate in both the places may not be the same. These details must be furnished in order to serve as a proper evidence for the comparison with the study report.

Second, the author bluntly arrives at a conclusion based on the causation-correlation flaw. Because fish consumption is very high, the author states people visit the doctor only once or twice per year. These two simultaneously occurring events may be completely unrelated. But the author ties a knot between them without proper evidence. For example, it could be the case that, most of the cold-affected people of East Meria have their own traditional treatments for cold. Or they might be poor enough, not to afford medical treatment by visiting a doctor. These might be the reasons for people not visiting the doctor. The author erroneous;y equates the treatment of colds with the frequency of occurrence of colds. Hence, a clear logical link must be established before the author arrives at such a point.

Third, a faulty suggestion is made based on premises which lack sufficient back up of facts and evidence. The author takes a giant leap of faith and states that eating substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. At the first state, it is not known whether the occurrence of colds is really less in East Meria. Even if it were true that the colds do not affect many people at East Meria, it can be due to some other reasons too. May be the people of East Meria adapt themselves according to climate. The people could also lead a healthy lifestyle if they are affluent enough to take care of their health appropriately. Hence these factors must be taken into consideration before making this intermediate conclusion.

Fourth, the author relies heavily upon the fact the reasons given for absences from school and work were colds. It might probably be the situation that, people falsely pretend to have reported colds in order to validate their absence. Above all, the author seems to be inconsiderate when he claims that Ichthaid (a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil) will help in preventing colds and lessening absenteeism. The people of the place which the author is considering, may not be able to afford this supplement. It might even be the case that the manufacturing procedure for this supplement is complex or people may be allergic to the use of this supplement. When it is not known that, if people will even dare to use this supplement, it is not correct to argue that it will achieve the intended results.

Thus, the argument, on thorough analysis presents a variety of flaws which need substantial evidence like: the comparison of cities without proper factors, equating visits to the doctor with the occurrence of colds, stating consumption of fish will prevent colds without the characteristics of people taken into consideration, taking the reasons for absence as granted without validating statistics. Hence the author must properly establish on what means are the two places to be compared. Moreover, the way in which consumption of fish will lead to prevention of colds must be backed up with research results. The likes and dislikes of the people, and whether they will effectively use the nutritional supplement must be analysed. Proper statistics has to be furnished to strengthen the reason of colds for absenteeism in schools and workplaces. Only if this kinds of evidence is given, will the argument be flawless and possible for implementation.