Critical Thinking A00510753

Individual practice with peer evaluation

 What are the arguments of the article in the Official diary (DOF)?
The arguments of the article are that in Mexico there’s a problem of obesity that it is
partially caused by sugar beverages because the population intake an important amount
of calories from sugar added beverages.
By taking control of the situation, the Mexican government has implied a new tax for
beverages products made with sugar, concentrated syrups or any another type of sugar
adding.

 What are the consistencies or inconsistencies that you found in the document?
Instead of trying to contribute to a real solution, the Mexican government is not attacking
the real issue that is the problem of obesity. The government is implying that if they
increase the price of goods people will be less likely to buy them. This argument cannot
be trusted because it is a fallacy due to not having the complete information or a
fundamental reason for thinking in that manner. Also, there are implying that with this kind
of taxing (IEPS) will be a lower obesity rate in the country which is hardly doubtful because
there is more than one reason for the obesity health issue that Mexico maintain.

 What is the bias or errors that you found in the arguments (bad arguments, fallacies,
omissions, false inferences and deceptive statistics)?
There’s missing information about the factors that cause obesity in Mexico. There are
assuming that sugar beverages are highly responsible for the overweight without giving
statistics that collaborate that value. Also, they are saying that they are acting to the
problem of diverse health issues such as diabetes, hypertension and other chronological
diseases, which are not always caused by overweight or poor eating choices but
sometimes for heritage, lack of exercise or prevented medicine.

 Can conclusions be derived from the arguments?

There could be conclusions from the arguments but there would be with false interferences
due to the lack of information and will be biased in only the facts that the article gives.

 Does the point of view of the document is derived from research?

I don’t necessary think that the point of view of the article is derived from research but
more of an example for being opportune or to excuse the new resolution tax. There’s a lot
of missing information to conclude a statement that “IEPS” will actually help with the
obesity problem and also that the new tax will improve the quality of life in Mexico
according to the diseases derived from overweight.

 In which way are you ordering your own arguments to avoid being disperse?
I’m ordering my arguments to avoid being disperse in the following way: -First by having
a purpose that is analyzing the document. Then, by having questions of the information
that I’m reading to complete and have a solid base for my assumptions and point of view.
With all the new data, I can make my own implications and conclusions.