1. 1 - What are the arguments of the DOF article?
Because of the high consumption of sugar-added beverages, the overweight and obesity of Mexico are
in high development. To prevent a collapse in the healthcare of the country, a State Policy to change the
eating and physical activity pattern was defined.
2 - Which consistencies and inconsistencies did you find in the document?
I think the problem is not the inconsistencies inside the document, but the policy itself: its hard to
control the people and what they eat/drink: the article was talking about the sugar-added beverages
and then suddenly talking about eating, ok, but the chat is the same. You can ban a lot of unhealthy
food, but people can still overeat/overdrink and became fat, even with meat.
3 - Which biases did you find in the arguments?
As I said above, thinking that only food with a lot of sugar makes people fat. Its a complicated argument.
4 - Can conclusion be drawn from the arguments?
No, not with those arguments. You can’t get a conclusion if you don’t know what are you talking about.
You must think, research, speak with experts and so on. Health is a big and complicated argument
5 - Is the person’s point of view derived from his/her research?
Probably, but if he/she researched that was done badly.
6 - How are you ordering your own arguments?
First things first I do research. Then if I know someone expert I ask, then I approach what I found with
my experience. Then I try to talk to other people, and when I see a right answer I can be satisfied
