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 M

In this argument, the author attempts to suggest the daily use of a nutritional supplement from fish oil to prevent colds and lower absenteeism in the West Meria. He base this prediction on a study implemented in nearby East Meria which indicated the effect of eating fish on preventing colds and a claim that colds are the most frequent reason for absences. Whereas, lacking in cogent evidence, his assertion is severely undermined on its validity.

As is implied in the study, where fish consumption is very high, people seldom visit the doctor for treatment of colds, which concludes eating fish serves to prevent colds. The author apparently predicts that higher fish consumption definitely leads to fewer colds. Nonetheless, he should not rashly preclude the existence of other possibilities. For instance, the higher consumption of fish could be caused by a considerable number of people in favor of shopping and doing shopping appears to be a decent way of exercising and strengthening one’s body. Hence it is the process of consuming instead of eating fish that contributes to the reduction of colds in the West Meris. Therefore, more evidence is required to ensure the definite relevance of fish consumption and colds.

Even if the less colds are indeed caused by the higher consumption of fish, the author can hardly extrapolate that attendance levels will be improved because of the decrease of colds. He obviously assumes that colds are the actual main reason for absences from school and work. Yet he is likely to neglect the probability that the given reason for absence merely serves as the veil of people’s real intension to escape from work or school. For example, a date or emergency that distracts one from schedule seems unlikely to be approved and thereby needs reasonable excuse for permission to leave. In this case, taking measure to decrease colds will not markedly lower absenteeism. Thus the author ought to provide more convincing statistics to illustrate that reducing the occurrence of cold will improve attendance levels.

Even though taking in more supplements derived from fish benefits for one’s health and improve attendance levels in East Meria, it will not necessarily exert an influence in the region of West Meria. The author clearly premises that encouraging eating fish will generate the same effect in these two areas. He might ignore, however, some critical difference between them, which could impair the practicality of the measure. Perhaps citizens in West Meria have alternative methods to resist cold such as ice-sports and taking in extra fish seems dispensable. Accordingly, the author should present more details concerning the similarity of the two regions as to warrant the reliability of his suggestion.

Conclusively, the author proposes that individuals supply more nutrition derived from fish to prevent colds and reduce absenteeism. Nevertheless, he failed to present convincing evidence, which seriously undermines the persuasion of his proposal.