The document discusses arguments made in a DOF article about reducing sugar-added beverage consumption in Mexico. It argues that high sugar beverage intake contributes to obesity and disease, and the government should implement policies or taxes to address this public health issue. However, the arguments contain inconsistencies and logical fallacies. It makes assumptions without evidence and omits alternative factors. Due to these issues, the document concludes that no objective conclusions can be drawn from the arguments.

1. 1) What are the arguments of the DOF article?
a. That the high consumption of high sugar-added beverages contributes
significantly to excess energy intake and is critical to development of overweight
and obese individuals in Mexico, which is a serious public health issue locally.
b. That the government should act on (a) to attempt to reduce sugar-added
beverage consumption in Mexico via public health policies, which would reduce
the morbidity and mortality caused by non-contagious chronic diseases such as
hypertension and diabetes
c. That the implementation of relevant policies by the Mexican government would
be successful in reducing the incidence of obesity in Mexicans.
d. That the IEPS tax on producers and importers by the Mexican government would
be more likely than just a public health policy to reduce high-sugar added
beverage intake by Mexicans
2) Which consistencies or inconsistencies did you find in the document?
a. Consistencies:
i. It is consistently described in the article that the consumption of high
sugar-added beverages contributes to chronic diseases like obesity and
diabetes, which represent a big and serious public health issue in Mexico.
ii. It is consistently described in the article that the Mexican government
needs to do something about the situation, and that such actions by the
government would lead to beneficial effects in the population
b. Inconsistencies:
i. The author goes from describing public health policies targeted at the
consumer level to how it is important to also target upstream importers
and producers – it is unclear if it is inferred that the effects of the taxes on
importers and producers would be carried over to the consumers as well.
3) Which biases or errors did you find in the arguments (bad arguments, fallacies,
omissions, false inferences and deceptive statistics)?
a. The author uses ambiguous language when describing the seriousness of issues:
i. “High-sugar added beverages”: What qualifies a beverage as having high
sugar levels?
b. Deceptive statistics:
i. “Contributes notoriously”: To what quantifiable extent is this causation?
ii. “Problematic high prevalence”: What are the problems that these
diseases have caused in Mexico, and how high is the prevalence in terms
of the number people affected?
c. False inferences: The author assumes, without evidence, that the tax levy would
be more effective than public health policy.
d. Omissions: The author suggests that the only 2 ways that can reduce high-sugar
beverage intake are through top-down initiatives from the government, like
public health policies or levied taxes. However, the author does not consider
other factors like education, or the intrinsic motivation in individuals to be
healthier.
e. False cause fallacy: The author assumes that the policies implemented by the
government will cause Mexicans to reduce their high sugar-added beverage
consumption.

2. 4) Can conclusions be drawn from the arguments?
a. No, no objective conclusions can be drawn from the author’s arguments.
5) Is the person’s point of view derived from his or her research?
a. Yes, I can infer that the author believes that high sugar-added beverages is the
driving cause for diseases like diabetes, and that only top-down initiatives by the
government would be effective in reducing this.
6) How are you ordering your own arguments (to avoid being unfocused)?
a. I am grouping my points into categories and the main fallacies I observe.