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 that fish consumption will prevent colds and lower absenteeism in west meria makes a number unwarranted assumptions that are as follows: assumption that East Meria residence rarely visit the doctor for cold treatment because of their high fish consumption rate; the assumption that ichtaid is a better substitute for fish; and the assumption that what work for East Meria will work for West Meria. Taken as a whole, these unstated assumptions render the argument highly suspect. Unless these assumptions are taken into consideration, the argument totally falls apart.

The first leap in the argument is the assumption that East Meria residence rarely visit the doctor for cold treatment and this is as a result of their high fish consumption rate. This is flawed as the argument failed to consider other factors – such as the residence wearing thick clothes regularly to protect them from cold, the residence staying indoor most of the time and many others - that could have led to their often visit to the doctor. Therefore, the author needs to provide evidence that it is only the consumption of fish in East Meria that led to the rare visit of its residence to the doctors for cold treatment. Until this evidence is provided before the argument is validated.

Furthermore, the argument assumes that Ichthaid is a better replacement for fish. Ichthaid is only a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil. It is not the a fish on it own. There are other parts of fish that could be the cure to cold. Thus, the author needs to provide evidence ichthaid, being an extract from fish oil and not a fish on its own, will provide cure for cold. This evidence will strengthen the argument by proving that the nutritional supplement from fish oil is the main cure for cold.

Lastly, the argument failed to consider other factors that could also lead to higher rate of absenteeism at school and in workplace. This high rate might be as a result of high traffic rate in the city or that majority of the students and workers live at a farther distance from school, thereby making it difficult for these students and workers to come to school and workplace regularly. Thus, the author needs to provide the evidence that only cold makes people to be more absent from both school and workplace. This evidence will strengthen the argument that the high rate of absenteeism in workplaces and schools is as a result of cold.

In conclusion, the argument that increase in rate of fish consumption in West Meria will prevent cold and lower absenteeism in schools and workplaces makes numerous unstated assumptions that seriously weaken its validity. Unless these assumptions are considered, the argument totally falls apart. Thus, West Meria might be making a major mistake by increase its intake of fish consumption rather than considering other factors that could lower cold and absent rate.