ARGUMENT 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 Meria where fish consumption is very high people visit the doctor only once or t

The argument concludes that the daily usage of Ichthaid which is derived from fish oil can prevent colds and lower absenteeism of West Meria. This conclusion is based on the premises that people of East Meria eat more fish then they have few colds, that Ichthaid derives from fish which can prevent cold equally with fish, and that colds lead to absenteeism. At the first glance, the recommendation seems plausible. However, its logic is faulty, since some specific evidence are overlooked by the arguer.

First, the arguer assumes that people in East Meria visit the doctor not very much often equals with they have fewer times of getting colds. However, based on the common sense, people who get colds may treat themselves at home instead of going to ask for the doctors' help.

Even if colds have a lower rate of appearance in East Meria, the reason of it may not only caused by consuming fish. Although fish consumption is high there, other factors can also prevent the appearance of colds such as environment and climate. If the air is clear and whether is moderate, people have lower chance to catch a cold. Therefore, those hidden factors ignored by the author can weaken the recommendation.

Secondly, the argument falsely depends on the assumption that both East and West Meria are very similar in each environmental and physical condition. Then the arguer assumes that West Meria will be lower its colds rate if it follows East Meria's steps. However, although eating fish does prevent the cold in East Meria, West Meria may not receive the desirous result by simply copying the action. Because there may different conditions between the two areas. The arguer does not provide any specific evidence to substantiate the people, environment and any other conditions even the causes of colds in both areas are totally same. Without them, the analogy between two areas can not adequately serve to the points suggested by the arguer.

Finally, the author maintains that Ichthaid, an element exists in fish oil can prevent colds. However, the author does not offer the evidence that there are no other ingredients in fish or fish oil can also inhibit the appearance of colds. For example, the eggs in fish may also have the same function.Thus,unless the argument can rule out the other possibilities, the prediction is shaky and vulnerable.

Even though the Ichthaid has been proved that it can prevent cold effectively, however, cold may not the very reason that leads to the absenteeism in schools of West Meria. Other factors need to be taken into account. For example, students may not finish their homework on time and feel too guilty to show up at school; or they may just do not feel that they need to come to school that day. So, author should to reveal evidence which is strong enough to support the standpoint, or the whole recommendation is only built unreliably.

In conclusion, the argument that focusing on taking Ichthaid daily to prevent colds and absenteeism is rather weak. If the author takes into account the potential evidence behind the event, the argument would be greatly strengthened. The action of caring development of the West Meria should be certainly appreciated, however, without the additional evidence to support, the recommendation can not bring the efficacious effects as predicted.