▶ Your Answer :
According to the above statement, the
author maintain that by daily consumption of beneficia, which have effect of
preventing people from getting colds, absenteeism will be diminished in West
Meria. While supporting the argument, the author makes several assumptions that
cannot be taken for granted thus the argument is severely damaged without
further evidence verifying such unjustified assumptions.
To begin with, the author unfairly assumes
that study conducted in East Meria can represent entire states. However, the
contents of survey might not be credible since the spot near East Meria might
be too narrow and small so open possibility the result being only the
exceptional case. For example, population in East Meria have special body
characteristic suitable for digesting nutrient in benefica, devoid in other
state. Further evidence is needed to support the argument since a lack thereof
makes the author's claim unpersuasive.
On top of that, the author assumes that the
frequency where people in East Meria visiting doctors for colds can shows their
health state, however, this may not be the case.
Although people in East Meria have cold,
they might not visit their doctor because their financial state is not afford
to paying for curing in hospital or simply, they might think going hospital is
futile. Moreover, one or twice visit to doctor might not represent their vital
health state because other state's frequency of visiting hospital is not given
so it is impossible to determine that their health state pertaining to cold is
right state. As such, more detailed data needs to be considered whether the
assumption is indeed warranted since the argument largely based on it.
Finally, even if above assumptions can be
taken for granted, the author's assumptions that diminishing colds directly
result in decreased absenteeism is not conclusively proven.
Though beneficia would have effect on
diminishing colds, the effectiveness might be marginal to decreasing absence.
Moreover, people could deceive their teacher or superior officer that they are
still suffering from colds although they are already relieved from colds by
benefica. Since the argument significantly rests on it, further evidence is
necessary to ascertain the prediction.
In sum, the author's argument is not well
supported in its current form. Further evidence is necessary to determine the
validity of the argument. |