Many lives might be saved if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered to all people in areas in which the disease is detected However since there is a small possibility that a person will die as a result of the inoculations we cannot permi

The above statement argues that because of the small fatality risk that the cow flu innoculation poses, it should not be routinely administered. The argument is deceptively attractive because it catters to people's fears of possible death. However, I find the rigor of the argument insufficient as it fails to provide crucial data that can perhaps stengthen or weeken the the decision to ban routine innoculations.

Anyone who has seen TV advertisments for FDA approved pharmaceutical drugs will notice that most drugs have an huge list of potentially severe side effects and in some cases even a risk of death. Nonetheless, these drugs have been approved by the FDA because the benefit they provide outweighs the potential negative effects. For example, chemotherapy, which is a very invasive procedure to cure cancer, poses a high degree of fatality risk. Nonetheless, people continue to choose to take it because its benefit outweighs the risk of death. In order for the aforementioned statement to make a logical sense, we need to have statistical data on the possibility of death from innoculations. That would enable us to make a sound judgment on whether the risk is high enough to ban its use.

Furthermore, we need to be provided with evidence on what the consequences of not routinely admistering the cow flu innoculations would be. It might be that the fatalities from the lack of innoculations outnumbers the possible fatalities rom the adminstration of the vaccine. In this case, one can make a logical argument that the, eventhough there is a small risk for death from the innocultions, it is even more imperative to provide the ennoculations to prevent more deaths from cow flu. It might be that there are alternatives to innoculations that can perhaps protect people from cow flu with no or a much smaller risk of fatality, and that whomever banned the cow flu innoculations has done so in favor of these alternatives. If this is indeed true, we need a detailed information on these alternative drugs.

In addition, the argument does not specify what 'routinely' exacty means. We need evidence on the number of innoculations needed to sufficiently protect one from cow flu. We need evidence on the frequence of innoculations that exposes one to risk of fatality from the vaccination itself. It maybe that we only need to adminster the innoculation only once in a lifetime, in which case there is no need to routinely adminster the vaccination.

In conclusion, the argument posited in the given statement is weak because it does not provide us with vital evidences that are needed to evaluate the argument. In order to strengthen or weaken the argument, we need data on the number of fatalities from the adminstration of the innoculations, the number of fatalities from cow flu in the absence of innoculations, and if they exist, altenative ways of protecting people from cow flu. Furthermore, we need specific information on the maximum number of innoculations need to sucessfully protect one from cow flu and the minimum number of innoculations that expose one to the risk of fatality.