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

The author's claim may look logical and valid at the first glance. However, as we go deep into the matter, we discover that the argument lacks credibility because the author has overlooked certain vital points essential to strengthen the argument.

Firstly, it is claimed that if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered to all people then many lives could be saved. It is now where mentioned about the reason behind the increase in number of deaths. Inoculation against cow flu might be a possibility behind the increase in the number of deaths. It could also be that the increase in the death rate has got nothing to do with the inoculations against cow flu. Hence it would have been a valid point had the exact reason behind the deaths been mentioned.

Secondly, the term 'MANY' is misguiding. It is not perspicuous. One could easily question 'HOW MANY?' Not only has the author not mentioned about the exact number of deaths, but also he has not mentioned the total population of the area. Had these two stats been mentioned, then it would have been impossible to argue against it. Also, the date of the claim has not been mentioned. It could be possible that it is an old claim and by now the solution of the problem must have been found. The term 'ROUTINELY' is ambiguous. A routine check up might be once in a week or once in a month, or once in 6 months, etc.

A careful look shows that the article is contradicting itself. In the first line it claims that many lives could be saved if inoculations against cow flu were routinely administered. The very next line say that the possibility of a person dieing as a result of the inoculations is small. This shows that the reason behind the increase in the death count is something else.

Also, the author states that the possibility is 'SMALL'. One cannot land up on conclusions without knowing 'HOW SMALL'? Had the author provided a probability of the percentage of the possibility then it would have buttressed the stand to oppose the decision of permitting inoculations. The other drawback is that the article clearly states: Inoculations won't be permitted because very few will die of the inoculations. This seems to be in human because each life is priceless.

Thus, due to the overstated flaws, the argument seems to be ill-founded. However, had the author taken care of the above points, then the argument would have been infallible. But as of now, the authenticity of the argument falls flat.