-
Random Wok
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 3:26 pm
- Thanked: 8 times
- GMAT Score:750
ESSAY QUESTION:
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.
YOUR RESPONSE:
In the past few years, healthcare and healthcare reform have been under major scrutiny by the entire world. Beyond the issue of paying for healthcare is the issue of making people healthier, or preventative medicine. It is logical to initially think that, if people simply ate more nutritious food, they would subsequently be healthier and have fewer diseases. However, with the case of adult onset diabetes, this would definitely not be true. While the argument has some merits with its goal for improving consumer health, there are serious flaws with this argument.
The argument suggests that by merely injecting more vitamins and minerals into the food supply, the rate of adult onset diabetes will decrease. The problem with this logic is that diabetes is not caused by a lack of nutrition. The main culprits behind this disease are obesity and over-eating. If the government were to force manufacturers to instill their products with more nutrients, it would likely have have little effect on the overall amount of food that people consumed. Therefore, the new policy would also have little to no effect on reducing the rate of adult diabetes.
Furthermore, the nutrients themselves present a problem with the stated goal. Additional nutrients added to food will typically represent additional calories added to ones diet. If the new policy ends up increasing a consumers caloric intake, it could actually speed up the manifestation of adult onset diabetes. This would definitely not be the desired effect of a new healthcare policy.
One way to improve this argument would be to increase the restrictions on food manufacturers, by making them produce food that is not only vitamin enriched, but also lean and low in sodium. These additional factors would take calories out of the food supply and thus reduce our obesity rates. If the new policy incorporated elements to ensure that the manufacturers created foods that helped lower the obesity rate, it would be much more likely to succeed in combating adult onset diabetes.
Healthcare is an issue that is likely to remain in the forefront of our minds for many years to come. While there are many policies that would, on a surface level, appear to aid our battle against diabetes, they all must be fully vetted before being put into place. If we are to truly win the fight against this disease, we must attack it from many fronts, by giving our people food that is both more nutritious and less fattening.
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.
YOUR RESPONSE:
In the past few years, healthcare and healthcare reform have been under major scrutiny by the entire world. Beyond the issue of paying for healthcare is the issue of making people healthier, or preventative medicine. It is logical to initially think that, if people simply ate more nutritious food, they would subsequently be healthier and have fewer diseases. However, with the case of adult onset diabetes, this would definitely not be true. While the argument has some merits with its goal for improving consumer health, there are serious flaws with this argument.
The argument suggests that by merely injecting more vitamins and minerals into the food supply, the rate of adult onset diabetes will decrease. The problem with this logic is that diabetes is not caused by a lack of nutrition. The main culprits behind this disease are obesity and over-eating. If the government were to force manufacturers to instill their products with more nutrients, it would likely have have little effect on the overall amount of food that people consumed. Therefore, the new policy would also have little to no effect on reducing the rate of adult diabetes.
Furthermore, the nutrients themselves present a problem with the stated goal. Additional nutrients added to food will typically represent additional calories added to ones diet. If the new policy ends up increasing a consumers caloric intake, it could actually speed up the manifestation of adult onset diabetes. This would definitely not be the desired effect of a new healthcare policy.
One way to improve this argument would be to increase the restrictions on food manufacturers, by making them produce food that is not only vitamin enriched, but also lean and low in sodium. These additional factors would take calories out of the food supply and thus reduce our obesity rates. If the new policy incorporated elements to ensure that the manufacturers created foods that helped lower the obesity rate, it would be much more likely to succeed in combating adult onset diabetes.
Healthcare is an issue that is likely to remain in the forefront of our minds for many years to come. While there are many policies that would, on a surface level, appear to aid our battle against diabetes, they all must be fully vetted before being put into place. If we are to truly win the fight against this disease, we must attack it from many fronts, by giving our people food that is both more nutritious and less fattening.
