Please read and grade: GRE AWA Argument Task... THANKS!

[mbmedina]

Task:

The Following report appeared in the newsletter of the West Meria Public Health Council.

"An innovative treatment has come to our attention that promises to significantly reduce absenteeism is our school and workplaces. A study reports that in nearby East Meria, where fish consumption is very high, people visit the doctor only once or twice per year for the treatment of colds. Clearly, eating a substantial amount of fish can prevent colds. Since colds represent the most frequently given reason for absences from school and work, we recommend the daily use of Ichthaid--a nutritional supplement derived from fish oil--as a good way to prevent colds and lower absenteeism."

Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.

RESPONSE:

 

While the claim presented in the report provides a public health related concern, the evidence presented is not sufficient to uphold the claim itself. Such assumptions--such as the relationship between high fish consumption and doctor’s visits and the rate of absenteeism and colds will decrease by taking a dietary fish supplement--must be further substantiated before such a claim can be viable.

The first assumption--that high fish consumption attributes to the amount of doctor’s visits people have annually--is barely explained. In order to uphold this piece of information, more information on the people of East Meria should be conveyed--the population of East Meria, number of physicians present in the area, number of people that visit their physician for a cold compared to all other visits. Many other factors can attribute to the low number of doctor’s visits to seek treatment for colds, such as over-the-counter medication, access to nearby physician, or healthy nutrition habits. Each would have an effect as to why a person may not visit a doctor for a cold.

Secondly, the claim that taking a fish supplement will decrease the likelihood of getting a cold, thus decreasing the rate of absenteeism has gaps in itself. Relevant evidence should be presented in terms of the statistics of absenteeism in East Meria, the causes of absenteeism, and more information on the the effect of the fish supplement on the common cold. This claim also disregards any provided information from employees or youth that claim an “excused absence” specifically due to the common cold. Without the indicated information to substantiate a relation between the two, the claim is incomplete.

The relationship between intaking a dietary fish supplement and prevention of the common cold needs more than mere assumptions to be considered viable. While this claim leads to a short term solution, it is too incomplete to determine any true effects.