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 report that appeared in the newsletter of west Meria Public Health Council state that, to treat the absenteeism of school on should eat fish oil in order to abstain oneself from cold, and advocate that in East Meria, the people eats very high amount of fish and they assumed that this is the probable reason that people from there does not suffer much from cold as the cold the reason for the absenteeism. In my opinion the argument rests on questionable assumptions, suffers from vaguely defined terms and contains numerous logical flaws that make it nearly impossible to validate the conclusion.
At the very outset, the argument assumed that cold is the reason for student absentia. There can be a lot of reasons the student can be absent on the class, for instance the student in West Maria might does not like to go to school, they prefer tuition more then school. But in the statement the author has assumed that the student absentia can only be happen because of cold which is weakening the argument. To bolster it’s claim the author need to provide sufficient amount of proof that the reason for not coming to school is cold only.
Secondly, If we assume that cold is the reason then to prevent it, the author is directly comparing West Meria with East Meria, but are they both same? It may happen that the whether in East Maria is very much suitable for the people that live there, on the contrary West Maria whether is so much cold, so students there suffers from cold most often. The author does not mention the climate of both state, which is making the argument weak, if author could mention here the geographic condition of both area and how are the comparable then the claim could hold water.
Thirdly, the author claims that as the people from the east meria consume lots of fish and for that they does not catch cold, but claim that is being made here is highly vague assumption and the correlation does not equal causation, it may happen that the people from East Meria eat something else, and fish is not the reason, the author does not have any bolster proof for the assumption. Which is making the argument unwarranted.
Fourthly, Lets say fish is the only cure for the cold but how much fish exactly needed to cure that? The author mentioned substantial amount, but we do not know what is exactly the amount, it may be two or three big fish or something else. Moreover, the author suggests that pupil of West Meria should take lchthaid which is a supplement derived from fish oil, but the author does not mentioned anything about quantity, if we assume that one should take fish oil to prevent one from cold but how much one should consume, furthermore are the fish oils safe for children? If it is then how much is safe? The author does not mentioned anything about it, which is weakening the argument.
To better evaluate the argument the author need to give enough information about his assumptions like, are the area of West Meria and East Meria comparable? Is cold is the only reason for the students absentia? Can fish oil is comparable to a fish? If the author does not provide enough information about the claim about eating fish oil in order to prevent the cold and the cold is the only reason for the absentia, and the comparison about two different please the argument will not hold any water, moreover if this criteria could justify then the argument can be bolstered.