-
[email protected]
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2014 4:45 am
Thanks, B
The following appeared in an article in a medical journal:
"The major increase in new cases of adult-onset diabetes during the past decade is the result of poor nutrition, which is itself the result of a lack of government control over the quality of foods available at low prices. If the government placed more emphasis on proper nutrition by requiring that food manufacturers include more vitamins and minerals in their products, the rate of adult-onset diabetes would be reduced significantly."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
The author states that the main reason contributing to adult on-set diabetes during the past decade is due to poor nutrition, more specifically, lack of government control on foods at lower prices. This statement alone does not constitute as a logically argument and the author omits concerns that must be addressed in order to substantiate the claim.
First, what evidence is there that the government doesn't control high price foods the same way as lower priced foods? Is low price food regulated differently from high priced foods and the government is in fact controlling them different, furthermore, what is the logic behind that method? Additionally, there may be a wide array of factors that contribute to the purchasing behaviour of adult food choices and that even if low costs foods were regulated by government to be more healthy, adults would not choose to purchase. There is no logic and a serious lack of evidence to connect any of the above statements to the authors claim.
Second, maybe low costs foods are extremely healthy and maybe have more nutrients than thought, and may be even more healthy than higher priced foods. What evidence is there to show what low costs foods have poor nutrition? Is there a directly correlation to cost and nutrition value when looking at foods or is it just assumed that low cost foods have less nutrition due to their value? There is no evidence to correlate that low costs foods have less nutrition than high priced foods making this an illogical argument.
Third, maybe if there was evidence to support that the government puts less emphasis on controlling low costs foods and that low costs foods are in fact less nutritional, the authors claim could be argued more effectively but there is no supporting facts or evidence to make a conclusion.
Finally the authors statement is just an opinion without supporting facts making the argument neither sound nor persuasive. If the author could have provided support to correlate that low costs foods are not regulated strictly enough by the government and in fact have less nutritional value than high priced foods, the argument would have been more thorough and sound to draw a final conclusion.
The following appeared in an article in a medical journal:
"The major increase in new cases of adult-onset diabetes during the past decade is the result of poor nutrition, which is itself the result of a lack of government control over the quality of foods available at low prices. If the government placed more emphasis on proper nutrition by requiring that food manufacturers include more vitamins and minerals in their products, the rate of adult-onset diabetes would be reduced significantly."
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. Point out flaws in the argument's logic and analyze the argument's underlying assumptions. In addition, evaluate how supporting evidence is used and what evidence might counter the argument's conclusion. You may also discuss what additional evidence could be used to strengthen the argument or what changes would make the argument more logically sound.
The author states that the main reason contributing to adult on-set diabetes during the past decade is due to poor nutrition, more specifically, lack of government control on foods at lower prices. This statement alone does not constitute as a logically argument and the author omits concerns that must be addressed in order to substantiate the claim.
First, what evidence is there that the government doesn't control high price foods the same way as lower priced foods? Is low price food regulated differently from high priced foods and the government is in fact controlling them different, furthermore, what is the logic behind that method? Additionally, there may be a wide array of factors that contribute to the purchasing behaviour of adult food choices and that even if low costs foods were regulated by government to be more healthy, adults would not choose to purchase. There is no logic and a serious lack of evidence to connect any of the above statements to the authors claim.
Second, maybe low costs foods are extremely healthy and maybe have more nutrients than thought, and may be even more healthy than higher priced foods. What evidence is there to show what low costs foods have poor nutrition? Is there a directly correlation to cost and nutrition value when looking at foods or is it just assumed that low cost foods have less nutrition due to their value? There is no evidence to correlate that low costs foods have less nutrition than high priced foods making this an illogical argument.
Third, maybe if there was evidence to support that the government puts less emphasis on controlling low costs foods and that low costs foods are in fact less nutritional, the authors claim could be argued more effectively but there is no supporting facts or evidence to make a conclusion.
Finally the authors statement is just an opinion without supporting facts making the argument neither sound nor persuasive. If the author could have provided support to correlate that low costs foods are not regulated strictly enough by the government and in fact have less nutritional value than high priced foods, the argument would have been more thorough and sound to draw a final conclusion.
