Salicylates are members of the same chemical family as aspirin a medicine used to treat headaches Although many foods are naturally rich in salicylates for the past several decades food processing companies have also been adding salicylates to foods as pr

The prompt predicts that the widespread use of salicylates—especially in the form of flavor additives—might result in the decrease in the number of headache patients. The author of the prompt implicitly assumes the following three statements; (1) Salicylates and aspirin might be similar in ways that reduce the incidence of headache among participants The prompt predicts that the widespread use of salicylates—especially in the form of flavor additives—might result in the decrease in the number of headache patients. The author of the prompt implicitly assumes the following three statements; (1) Salicylates and aspirin might be similar in ways that reduce the incidence of headache among test subjects. (2) The use of Salicylates as preservatives is the sole cause that led to the decrease of the number of headache patients. (3) The future consumer behavior will continue to persist among the residents of Mentia. However, lacking enough warrant to back up their statement, the prompt is making a hasty conclusion that the citizens of Mentia would be the beneficiary from the food companies’ application of salicylates as flavor additives.

Firstly, the author ignores the possibility that the effectiveness of the two chemical substances would be different when it comes to treating headache. The author implies that as salicylates and aspirin both belong to the same group, their effects on human health would be similar. However, it is not necessarily the case. Perhaps, some trivial difference in chemical structure between the two substances amounts to critical difference on how they affect subjects’ body. It is also likely that human bodies require far more amount of salicylates to expect health benefits than aspirin; in such cases, the mere fact that salicylates might be beneficial to humans adds nothing towards bolstering the statement’s claim.

Secondly, the prompt omits to inform us about some other alternative explanations that might link the relationship between widespread use of salicylates and the number of patients with headaches. The author rules out too hastily the presence of some other factors other than salicylates. It is possible that national health programs have been improved over the past years in terms of treating headache, thereby reducing the number of such patients; in fact, the number of average headache patients might have been decreasing steadily over the past decades. On the other hand, the country might have experienced unusual economic downtun, making it harder for its citizens to go to hospital. Without considering such alternative possibilities—whether it is about nationwide change or not—the author is probably making a botched conclusion.

Lastly, the author assumes that consumers will not dramatically change their food-purchase habits within the next years. However, it is not always the case. Perhaps, the consumers in Mentia would not attracted to the new food-additives introduced by the food companies. Moreover, the consumers would no longer stick to their food buying habits and interests, placing a higher priority on healthy foods that are organic and additives-free. It is also likely that the current food manufacturing companies might be replaced by other ones who do not have the citizens’ health in their mind, in quest of profits.

All in all, lacking enough evidence to corroborate their assumptions, the author of the memo is making a botched prediction when it comes to salicylates’ ability to treat headache. The author should not relies on what might be an unfair analogy between the two substances. Additionally, the author must consider other possibilities that might explain the past trends of the decline in the number of patients. Lastly, the author cannot ensure that the future consumer trends will remain unchanged.