In the report, the Health Council claims that by increasing the consumption of lchthaid (a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil), could reduce lower absenteeism in their schools and workplaces as consumption of lchthaid prevents cold. These claims were made by stating that nearby East Meria had higher fish consumption which had resulted in lower visits to doctors for colds and assuming that the most frequent cause of absentees are due to cold. However, for fully evaluating the viability of the argument the following few assumptions should hold true.
Firstly, There is no mention of when the study reports of the East Meria was taken. If the study reports were taken recently (about 5 years ago ) or a month ago is not mentioned by the Health Council. Perhaps, the study reports were taken recently i.e 5years ago, so is that report still relevant? Suppose five years ago fishes in the East Meria ate alleges which were present at that time which helped the report to hold true and now the alleges are not as prevalent, which could change the result substantially. If this scenario has merit, then the conclusion drawn by the Council is significantly weakened.
Secondly, If people in East Meria visit doctors less often for treatment of cold that doesn’t confirm the fact that they didn’t have a cold, it is possible that people in East Meria didn’t prefer to visit doctor for cold treatments and took maybe 2 or 3 days of work leave for a full recovery. Thus if this scenario holds true then, the conclusion drawn by the Council will not hold water.
Moreover, It is mentioned that the most frequent given reason for absences are cold, and there is no evidence which proves the authenticity of the given reasons. There is a possibility that people in West Meria were not sick at all and those leave reasons given are subterfuge, as they wanted to take a work break. Thus the Health Council should provide a valid transcription which proves that people genuinely had cold, without which the argument is weakened.
Lastly, According to the study report in East Meria people ate substantial amount of fish and the Health council concluded that lchthaid has the same effect as that of the whole fish consumed. There is no evidence that proves that lchthaid is the main constituent of the fish mass that helps prevent cold. If lchthaid is not the main constituent of the fish mass that helps prevent cold, then the conclusion drawn by the Council is significantly weakened.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is considerably flawed due to its severe reliance on several unwarranted assumptions. If the Health Council is able to provide appropriate evidence --perhaps in terms of statistical research data – then it is possible to fully evaluate the viability of the conclusion drawn by the Public Health Council of the West Meria.