The following report 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 M

The argument above seems reasonable on the surface. However, the premises and conclusion of the report differ. Thus weakening the overall argument. The association drawn between colds and abseetism is also weak. Discussed below are the flaws of the arguments and the conclusion.

The first flaw of the argument is that it fails to provide evidence that East Meria and West Meria are comparable. Do the two cities have comparable life styles and employment demographics? If West Meria and East Meria are comparable in terrms of above, the argument may hold. However, the current generalization weakens the report’s arguments. Also, the report assumes that fish consumption is the reason why doctor visits for colds has reduced. This assumption would be valid if the writers can prove that holding other factors- such as presence of lack of a healthy lifestyle, good weather and incidence of diseases- constant, fish consumption reduces colds. Otherwise, the argument is weakened. The author also fails to clarify in what amounts and what parts of fish cause the reductions in colds. If for instance, fish oil is the substance responsible for reduction in colds, the conclusion may hold.

Furthermore, the writers state that colds are the major reason for absenteeism. This assertion is only valid if the writers can prove that people actually suffer from colds and do not just state it as a reason to miss work or school. This is because people can say they have a cold but do not. The lack of evidence such as doctors reports to show that absentees have cold weakens the argument.

The report’s recommendation for the use of a supplement is a departure from earlier arguments. The use of a supplement and the consumption of the actual food are two different things. A supplement is processed thereby losing certain nutrients. Therefore, the recommendation weakens the earlier claim that high consumption of fish reduces colds.

In conclusion, the report the based on a generalization that may not be applicable to West Meria, fails to support the stated claims and gives a recommendation that differs from the premises of the argument. To support the conclusion, the report should provide