A recent study indicates that children living in the Himalayan mountain region in Nepal have lower levels of tooth decay than children living in suburban areas in the United States, despite the fact that people in the Himalayan mountain region in Nepal re

The argument outlines the reasons, which suggest that regular dental care are not helpful in preventing tooth decay. The argument cites the reason of children in Nepal having less cases of tooth decay as compared to children from suburban areas of the United States. Furthermore, the argument bolsters its final conclusion by suggesting that people in the mountain regions of Nepal receive very little or no professional dental care compared to the people from the suburban areas of the United States. The argument in the end concludes that regular dental healthcare is not helpful in preventing tooth decay. The argument does not consider the various explanations for the facts presented, making it rife with loop holes. Furthermore, the argument does not make a cogent case due to the abstract details of information cited, thereby weakening the argument as a whole.

The Argument cites a study that suggests children in mountain ranges of Nepal have lower levels of tooth decay than children in the United states. Furthermore, the argument cites the reason of lack of dental care in Nepal. There may be many probable reasons for the lower level of tooth decay, such as the availability of less amount of sweetened products. Sugary edibles are the major source of tooth-decay, it may be possible that the lack of infrastructure in the mountainous regions of Nepal, there are less amounts of candies and sweetmeats, reducing the chances of tooth decay. Furthermore, it may be possible that due to the cold environment, children consume less amount of Ice-cream products as compared to the children in the United states. Thereby, reducing the chances of tooth decay. The argument also is weakened due to the lack of statistics regarding the statistics of how low is the level of tooth decay and the number of children compared in the sample set. It may be possible, that the children who were examined from the United States had an above average consumption of sweets as compared to majority of the children of the suburbs. Furthermore, may be the lower levels would be only of a small meagre value. There is an also possibility that the difference in the environments in the suburbs and the Mountain ranges has created a diversification in the genes of people of the mountain regions. Making the teeth of these people, more stronger and durable thereby, reducing the level of tooth decay.

Additionally, The argument bolsters its conclusion by stating that people in the United States visit on an average 1.25 times a year as compared to Nepal, where people hardly get any professional health care. The argument is a hampered due to citing children in the main explanation and buttressing it with a statistic of the people of the area. It maybe possible that children's hardly visit the doctors and majority of the visits are made by the adults. Furthermore, the visits might have been made only in the case of problems such as for root canal treatment or tooth extraction and not for regular check up. Furthermore, majority of the patients might be visiting the dentist for modification of tooth, such as braces requiring multiple visits and increasing the overall average. Thereby, there may be many possible explanations for the implication of the mentioned explanations in the argument. Furthermore, the arguments evidences can be questioned depending on the people surveyed. It maybe possible that the suburban area studied might have no dental care programs, thereby resulting in increased levels of tooth decay. On the other hand it may be possible that the cited evinces does not stand true for majority of suburban towns and is only true for a particular few.

In conclusion, the argument fails to provide proper explanations due to the lack of any supporting evidences. The argument is left wide open for different interpretations with respect to the possible causes of difference between the tooth decay in bot the stated regions. Thereby, the argument does not form a cogent case and is not at all convincing. The conclusion of the author of the argument, would therefore, be considered inconsequential and unwarranted.