An international development organization, in response to a vitamin A deficiency among people in the impoverished nation of Tagus, has engineered a new breed of millet high in vitamin A. While seeds for this new type of millet cost more, farmers will be p

The above argument focuses in alleviating the Vitamin A deficiency in Tagus by a bio-fortified millet. It assumes that this genetically engineered crop will be accepted because the millet is staple food. Author also concludes that the only way to combat the vitamin A deficiency is by promotion of this new millet variety by government subsidies.

First of all, the argument is fallacious in it's logical assumption of government funding for promotion of a genetically engineered crop. Author fails to understand the global condition of these GMF'S (Genetically Modified Food). Though there have been several GMF released still date, all remains to be only in testing fields as a consequence of opposition it has encountered all over the world. So bringing out the solution of GMF as a remedy for Vitamin A deficiency is not a good idea, it may also arouse a global opposition.

And also author additionally assumes that since millet is stable food of the region the engineered millet also will be easily accepted. Here author fails to note the famous example of "Golden rice and BT brinjal" though native to region has not been accepted in many of the South-Asian countries. If the same case repeated in Tagus then the re would be major revenue loss.

Secondly,the argument itself states that the new variety is expensive. He keeps a illogical idea of the government subsidies as solution to the cost scenario. But how many of the actual millet farmers are benefiters of government subsidy remains to be un-answered in the argument.

Thirdly, the argument is denied of statistical facts revealing actual amount of vitamin A expressed by these fortified millets. If the level of vitamin A remains to be in a low amount which does not matches the required quantity in human diet then the whole programme will go in vain.

On the contrary the argument may be correct about its assumptions on the fortified millet alleviating the vitamin deficiency but it has to be bolstered by the statistical records on level of vitamin expression in the new variety. Additionally a survey can also be done among the local millet farmers about this idea of fortification and census would be taken on how many will adopt it.

To conclude, the argument should be strengthen logically with the above said statistical and survey records in order to make it more sensible and bring immediate reforms by government.