In this
argument, the
speaker concludes that Forsythe citizens have adopted
healthier
1ifestyles.To justify this conclusion the speaker cites a recent survey of Forsythe citizens
suggesting that their eating
habits now conform more closely to government
nutritional recommendations than they did ten years ago.The speaker also points out
that sales of h n , a substance known to reduce cholesterol, have increased fourfold,
while sales of
sulia, which few of Forsythe''s healthiest citizens eat regularly, have
been declining.This argument is unpersuasive for several reasons.
First, the survey must be shown to be reliable before I can accept any conclusions
based upon it. Specifically, the responses must be accurate, and the respondents must
be statistically significant in number and representative of the overall Forsythe citi-
zenry in terms of eating habits.Without evidence of the survey''s reliability, it is impossible
to draw any firm conclusions about the current
dietary habits of Forsythe citizens
based on the survey.
Second, the argument relies on the dubious assumption that following the
government''s nutrition recommendations promotes health to a greater extent than
following any other nutrition regime. It is entirely possible that the dietary habits of
Forsythe citizens were healthier ten years ago than they are now.Thus, without evidence
to substantiate this assumption, the speaker cannot reasonably conclude that
the diet of Forsythe''s citizens has become more nutritional.
Third, the speaker assumes too hastily that increasing sales of products with kiran
indicates healthier eating habits. Perhaps Forsythe citizens are eating these foods in
amounts or at intervals that undermine the health benefits of kiran. Without ruling
out this possibility the speaker cannot reasonably conclude with any confidence that
increased kiran consumption has resulted in improved health for Forsythe''s citizens.
Fourth, the mere fact that few of Forsythe''s healthiest citizens eat sulia regularly
does not mean that sulia is detrimental to health-as the speaker assumes. It is possible
that sulia has no effect on health, or that it actually promotes health. Lacking
fm evidence that sulia affects health adversely, and that healthy people avoid sulia
for this reason,the speaker cannot justify any conclusions about the health of Forsythe''s
citizens from the mere fact that sulia sales are declining.
Finally, even if the dietary
changes to which the speaker refers are healthful
ones, the speaker overlooks the possibility that Forsythe citizens have been making
other changes in their dietary or other habits that offset these healthful changes.
Unless all other habits affecting health have remained unchanged, the speaker cannot
justifiably conclude that the overall lifestyle of Forsythe''s citizenry has become
healthier.
In sum, the argument is unconvincing as it stands.To strengthen it the speaker
must show that the survey accurately reflects the dietary habits of Forsythe''s citizens,
and that by following the government''s nutritional recommendations more closely
these citizens are in fact healthier.The speaker must also show that Forsythe''s citizens
have not made other dietary or other lifestyle changes that offset healthful changes.
Finally, to better assess the argument I would need more information about the manner
and extent to which Forsythe''s citizens now consume kiran and about the healthfulness
of sulia.
More abstracts about the Have Forsythe citizens adopted healthier lifestyles?