Cow Flu Argument Analysis

The claim explains that one way to save lives is administering inoculations against cow flu to people who live in contaminated areas. However, the passage discourage this action considering the modest possibility of death related to inoculation. Although, in order to decide which is the best policy to prevent losses, extra evidence is necessary.

Fisrtly, the argument relies on vague expressions, such as "many lives" and "small possibility", precluding the evaluation of the relevance of the issue. Analyzing the cow flu mortality index and the probability of death induced by inoculation, it will provide data to compare benefits and risks by adopting the vaccination policy. Therefore, if the number of fatalities caused by the flu demonstrates considerably greater compared to the risk of the shots, it could be reasonable to vaccinate the population, contrary to the argument. …show more content…
For example, if only women have died after the inoculation, it would be possible to exclude females and administer the doses only to males.

Moreover, the argument assumes that inoculations is the exclusive alternative of preventing cow flu, which represents a classic limited-choice fallacy. For example, if the possibility to treat the cattle exists, followed by the eradication of this disease, it will be unjustified to expose human beings to risk, corroborating to the argument. On the other hand, if the inoculation remains the unique solution to the problem, it will undermine the claim. Thus, considering that this decision involves risk of life, the analysis of all the variables that influences the resolution remains vital. Since people may die, either cases, without extra evidence the claim is not cogent enough to persuade the decision of administering inoculations against cow flu or