The following appeared in a health magazine.
“The citizens of Forsythe have adopted more healthful lifestyles. Their responses to a recent survey show that in their eating habits they conform more closely to government nutritional recommendations than they did ten years ago. Furthermore, there has been a fourfold increase in sales of food products containing kiran, a substance that a scientific study has shown reduces cholesterol. This trend is also evident in reduced sales of sulia, a food that few of the most healthy citizens regularly eat.”
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.
The author’s assertions have merit. In the last ten years, the citizens of Forsythe are eating more healthfully and are spreading the use of kiran and sulia. The citizens of Forsythe are clearly becoming more aware of what foods they need to eat and consuming them. However, the author fails to provide any evidence of how these foods affect cholesterol. Without this information, it cannot be determined whether Forsythe’s citizens are eating more healthful foods because they now know that they are healthier choices or if they are simply healthier individuals. As the author claims, reduced sales of sulia and kiran are evidence of the growing popularity of these foods. As a result, while the citizens of Forsythe are eating more healthfully, the health benefits of kiran and sulia are not being realized.
The author provides evidence that Forsythe’s citizens are eating more healthfully. The citizens have responded to the survey by reporting that they are eating more foods that provide necessary nutrition, such as fruits and vegetables. While these foods help maintain a healthy body, the author does not provide evidence that they have an impact on cholesterol. Further, the author provides no evidence of how kiran and sulia affect cholesterol levels. The author is correct that kiran and sulia are cholesterol-lowering foods, but that alone does not prove that they are beneficial to the Forsythe population. The author’s assertion that these foods are spreading is also questionable. In a small town, the individuals most likely to have eaten kiran and sulia in the past are most likely the ones who are older; therefore, it is more likely that the citizens who have eaten these foods in the past are now eating them. However, with no data showing how the citizens of Forsythe actually eat these herbs, it cannot be determined whether the citizens currently eating kiran and sulia are spreading them.
The third part of the author’s argument is that there has been a fourfold increase in the sale of food products containing kiran. While the author asserts that this increase is indicative of the increased popularity of kiran, it could just as easily be the result of increased advertising. So, to conclude, there is insufficient evidence to indicate that the Forsythe citizens are eating more healthfully as a result of kiran and sulia. Without evidence of how these foods affect cholesterol, there is no reason to believe that they are helping the citizens of Forsythe.