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 argument states that a new Vitamin A rich millet will help eradicate Vitamin A deficiency among people in Tagus. The argument is flawed and is based on assumptions.

The argument assumes that the people in Tagus will not be ignorant to the engineered new breed of millet and will readily accept it. Given the various controversies over genetically engineered crops around the world, this assumption doesn't sound sane. Like other parts of the world, people in Tagus too could be reluctant to the use of 'artificially' made crops.

The argument also doesn't mention if the new breed has some special requirements like excess rainfall or more sunlight. What if the engineered crop doesn't sustain in the current climatic conditions?

Also the argument ignores those who do not have Vitamin A deficiency. If entirely replaced by the new breed, people with no deficiency will have an increase intake of Vitamin A which may lead to severe diseases in long term.

Another assumption in the argument is that the government would promote the new millet. Unaware of the political situation of the nation, one cannot simply assume that the government will promote the crop. If the masses in the country are against the use of the crop, then there are chances that the ruling party will not upset it's supporters by promoting the new breed.

Given the details about the acceptance of the new crop, mention of any special requirements, concern for those with no Vitamin A deficiency and the political scenario of Tagus, the argument would've been justified. But with no mention of such details it is absolutely baseless and flawed.