Analysis of the official resolution to implement the IEPS tax, to sugar beverages

1. ❖ What are the arguments of the article in the Official diary (DOF)?
In the article, specifically points out high sugar added beverage is an important factor
of development of obesity and diabetes. From the opinion of the article it says, thus,
government should take this result as call for action of public policy in reducing sugar
added beverages. The strategy of national plan is to improve health by protection,
promotion and prevention. Therefore the Secretaria de salud comes out with the idea
by changing food consumption behavior in order to solve the problem.
❖ What are the consistencies or inconsistencies that you found in the document?
I found the consistency is the view of the article is keeping in a point that obesity is
due only due to high sugar added beverage consumption, and obesity is major
reason to cause these chronic disease. The inconsistency for me it’s that it
mentioned to have a state policy for being able to change food consumption it’s
fundamental. But later the whole opinion is more about the scope of whole nation.
❖ What are the bias or errors that you found in the arguments (bad
arguments,fallacies, omissions, false inferences and deceptive statistics)?
The beginning of the article clearly says high sugar added beverage consumption is
an important factor of causing obesity. But seems it ignores there may be other
purpose may causing obesity, and maybe it has bigger impact on it.
Besides, the chronic disease such as hypertension and obesity, high sugar added
beverage consumption it’s not the only cause. Thus, the author can’t make the
inference.
❖ Can conclusions be derived from the arguments?
In my point of view, I dont really think the arguments can be acheived. Even though
the extra tax cause the beverage price higher, we still need to consider sugar added
beverages in Mexico whether it is an inelastic product. Otherwise even the price it’s
higher, people will still consume the same quantity.
❖ Does the point of view of the document is derived from research?
Based on the article, it didn’t say it’s on any specific research data. Though, the
connection of cause and effect make sense. But it also could be a subjective
asumption as well. If the article can apply more accurate statistics, it could be more
convinced for people.
❖ In which way are you ordering your own arguments to avoid being disperse?
First, I would apply a objective view based on statistics or comment with authority.
With this I can avoid putting self-centered bias in to arguments. When I start to
describe further arguments I would quote from bigger scope to detail, instead of
quoting from small scope to big scope. In my opinion, this way it’s easier for my
audience to understand better. Finally, I would make sure my conclusion it derives
from the arguments and not having logical fallacy. One more important thing is when
I offer my arguments I should avoid any ambiguity in words and the position I stand
for.