The document discusses arguments for and against a sugary drinks tax proposed in a DOF article. It finds that while the article's aim of reducing obesity is logical, forcing changes could impede on liberties. It also notes inconsistencies around substitutes like artificial sweeteners not being mentioned. Key biases identified are ambiguous language around "added sugar" and omissions of alternatives to the tax like promoting exercise. The document concludes that not enough information is provided to draw clear conclusions from the article's arguments.

1. 1. What are the arguments of the DOF article?
The article is stating that sugary drinks cause extra consumption of calories, which
contributes to an obesity problem. The aim of the article is logical, but you cannot force
someone to change their ways. The deceitfulness in the article could impede on liberties.
The same action was taken in New York, and how has that worked?
2. Which consistencies or inconsistencies did you find in the document?
As far as consistency, the article did reinforce how and why they’re trying to tame obesity.
However, I’m almost positive you could have an artificial additive (sugar-free) as a substitute.
No mention of that in the article at all. The words “added sugar” cause you to think as well. Not
all beverages have added sugar content.
3. Which biases or errors did you find in the arguments (bad arguments, fallacies,
omissions, false inferences and deceptive statistics)?
Again, the “sugar-added” words are ambiguous. Will you be taxed on beverages that
contain natural sugar, or is it just the added sugar that constitutes the tax? I think the
article should be clear on this issue. Where is the alternative for this sugar tax (e.g.,
promoting exercise)?
4. Can conclusions be drawn from the arguments?
From reviewing the article, I don’t think conclusions can be drawn from the arguments.
There is still too much left on the table. The article has proven that is essential to
reinforce the policies. You have exercise as an alternative method of disease prevention.
It wasn’t clear whether artificial sweeteners count toward the IEPS tax.
5. Is the person’s point of view derived from his or her research?
It’s really hard to come to that conclusion because I did not see any peer-reviewed
articles mentioned or linked. I believe everything mentioned could be biased opinions.
6. How are you ordering your own arguments (to avoid being unfocused)?
I usually like to brainstorm or prepare a rough draft in my mind before even starting an
argument. I look for alternative views among all party members—nobody is right!
Staying engaged with the audience is the most important aspect with arguments.