Project: Analysis of the official resolution to implement the IEPS tax, to sugar

beverages

1. What are the arguments of the DOF article?

Answer:- The Mexican government arguments are as follows:-
 Public Health
 Sugar is the leading cause of obesity and is also known as excess energy, as such
this new tax by the Mexican Government would cease or limit morbidity and
mortality.
 With this new tax, they would be able to gain more revenue to continue the proper
implementation of the tax.

2. Which consistencies or inconsistencies did you find in the document?

It’s fact that beverages with added sugar contributes to obesity and artificial energy. Due
to that artificial energy being consumed heavily by children and teens, the Mexican
government could invest into youth clubs that would assist/give free accessible sports
training to all youth who require it. However, the focus here was to collect more revenue
using justifications and involving health to make people think, it is a necessity.

3. Which biases or errors did you find in the arguments (bad arguments, fallacies,
omissions, false inferences and deceptive?
The bias/error found in the argument is as follows:-
“Having a State policy to change the eating and physical activity patterns Mexican
Society”: A new tax impact wouldn’t help change people perspective as it pertains to
changing their eating patterns. However, for this reality to be implemented or executed
would require the government focusing heavily on sports and community outreach by
using popular artistes or socialite advocates. Obesity has a great impact on mental health
and if proper implementation isn’t taken quickly and the consumption of artificial sugars
continues then there would be a great expenditure from the government as it relates to
mental health homes. As such, the Mexican government should decrease the supply of
high sugared drinks and implement free programme.
4. Can conclusions be drawn from the arguments?
Not really, the arguments are focused mainly on health, but concluded in conversation
about imposing a special tax; if they really did care about the public health, their focus
would be on investing in programs to improve society’s health and not on generating
revenue for them.

5. Is the person’s point of view derived from his or her research?

The point of view derived from his personal opinion which is more focused on politics as
well as economical necessities than really thinking about the matter at hand which is
society’s health mental and physical.

6. How are you ordering your own arguments (to avoid being unfocused)?
The first argument should be pertaining to the health of minors instead of the importation
and exportation production/revenue of the government.
A tax of this magnitude would need incur a great expenditure
Second argument would be that the government needs to invest in people instead of
charging them more due to their fiscal measures.