GRE Argument Topic 26

NOTE: The above topic has wording similar to Argument Tasks 22 and 24 of this Website. However, if you read carefully you will notice that the topic and the task instructions are different. Hence, it is very important to read the topic as well as its instructions completely before you start to write your response.

Sample 1:

Salicylates, which are similar to aspirin, will be increasingly used in commercial food productions in the coming years. Studies have shown a correlation between this increase and the reduced number of headache reports. Based on a twenty-year study on headaches, some health experts predict that the population of Mentia will suffer from fewer headaches in the future due to the novel discovery that salicylates can be used in food as a flavor additive. As with any prediction, it is important to assess the validity of the claims being made by a thorough investigation of the premises that form its basis.

The health experts base their assessment of the efficiency of salicylates in treating headaches on its similarities with aspirin, a well know headache remedy. This assumption begets the question if the aspirin’s properties are transferable to salicylates just on the basis that they belong to the same chemical family. Should that prove to be true, then the health experts’ main assumption that increased salicylate consumption can lead to fewer headaches is greatly strengthened, provided that the quantities of salicylates to be added as flavor additives will be sufficient to be effective. However, if the opposite were true, this would significantly weaken the premise that aspirin’s properties are transferable to salicylates because members of the same chemical family share all properties. The answers would not invalidate the prediction that salicylates can cure headaches if the researchers have evidence of the direct effectiveness of the compound, regardless of its relation to aspirin.

In this vein, the health experts draw on additional evidence to support their prediction, specifically, a twenty-year study that correlates the increase of salicylates in commercial food usage with a decrease of reported headaches. To evaluate the validity of this assumption, it becomes necessary to ask if there are any other external factors that could have caused the decline in reported headaches. Some studies found that daily stress is the major contributor to headaches. Changes in the stress level of the area where the study was conducted can have a significant impact on the number of reported headaches. Other influencing factors can be tied to changes in the natural environment - like the reduction in air pollution due to the implementation of more ecologically friendly policies. According to researchers, weather and air pollution are significant triggers of severe headaches. If there are any other external changes, like the ones mentioned above, that can be responsible for the decrease in the number of headaches then the conclusions of the study would be severely weakened. The same would happen to the claim of the health experts with regard to the reduction of headaches in Mentia, since their whole case rests on the validity of the twenty-year study. However, should the health experts show that there were no other factors that could have contributed to the reduction in headaches, it would strengthen their claim that increased salicylate consumption in Mentia will result in fewer headaches, provided that the study participants did not take any painkillers or other drugs that can reduce headaches.

This is a particularly poignant issue for our current times since there has been a significant rise in self-medication over the years coupled with an equal rise of prescription drug usage. This trail of thought leads us straight to the next line of inquiry tied to the health expert’s assumption that the increase of salicylate use in commercial foods is responsible for the decrease in headaches reported. What the authors of the argument should ask themselves is whether the study participants consumed any other drugs that could have been responsible for the decrease in headaches. If, according to the increased medicine consumption trend, the participants in the study took any drugs that could have headache curing properties like Ibuprofen, Aspirin and Valium (to name just a few), then the results of the study would be completely invalidated since the researchers would not be able to say with any degree of certainty that the salicylates, and not the other drugs, were responsible for the reduction of headaches. This fact would significantly weaken the health experts' argument that an increase in salicylate consumption would result in fewer headaches in Mentia. However, should the opposite be true, the authors of the argument can further strengthen their main claim. If salicylates are shown to be the only headache reducing drug taken by the people in the study, then it becomes more likely that salicylates do have headache curing properties.

The validity of the twenty-year study, on which the health experts base their prediction, is also dependent on the assumption that the headache reports present in the study are accurate. This creates an interesting avenue of debate. The health experts should wonder just how constant was the people’s willingness to report headaches throughout the twenty-year study. Twenty years is a very long time for people to keeprecords. If people are consistently willing to report their headaches, then the scientists would have a more accurate representation of the changes in the levels of aches experienced by the study subjects, provided that the methodology for the data collection is sound. This would strengthen the claim that salicylates can be used to cure headaches if the researchers also show that there were no other factors that could have been responsible for the results. However, as stated before, twenty years is a long time – if people are a lot less willing to report headaches for year after year, then it becomes very likely that the reduction in headache reports is not due to any curative properties of salicylates. This idea would throw into question the whole premise that salicylates can be used to cure headaches, in which case, an increased consumption of salicylates would have little to no effect on the headache rates in Mentia.

When arguing that increased salicylate consumption will reduce the number of headaches in Mentia, the health experts assume that the study results are also applicable to Mentia. Before making any predictions on the outcome of the increased usage of salicylates in Mentia, the authors of the statement should inquire how similar are the demographics of the study participants to those of Mentia? If the two demographics are similar, that would slightly strengthen the argument that increased salicylate usage in Mentia will reduce headaches, if people will consume the products that contain the additives based on salicylates. However, if the demographics are different, then the health experts would need to determine to what extent the study findings are applicable. Should the selection criteria for the participants be biased towards people that are less likely to suffer from headaches then the results would not be applicable to the whole population of Mentia. For instance, if the study was conducted with young people while Mentia’s population consists mainly of elderly people (retiree towns like Florida), then it’s highly likely that the results of salicylate consumption would be different. The elderly take a lot of other drugs that could interfere and are generally more prone to headaches. Should the demographics of the study not match those of the town, then the health experts would need to do more research before advocating for the use of salicylates. However, this idea would not significantly weaken the prediction that there would be fewer headaches in Mentia, unless there is also a significant dip in effectiveness for the specific demographic categories of Mentia when compared to those of the study.

The health expert’s prediction that the people of Mentia will suffer from fewer headaches rests on the idea that an increase in the commercial use of salicylates can cure headaches. The problem with the statement above is that it’s rather ambiguous in terms of quantities to be used by the companies including salicylates in their food additives and shopping statistics for Mentia (percentage of products containing flavor additives that are bought by the people). Two main questions would arise from this issue, namely: how big is the expected increase in the commercial use of salicylates and how many products containing flavor additives does the average citizen of Mentia consume. These questions are relevant for determining whether the increase of salicylate usage for commercial purposes is also followed by a significant increase in the consumption of salicylates, enough to be considered effective. Should the companies add just traces of salicylates in their additives, not enough to be considered effective, it would significantly weaken the suggestion that an increase in salicylates usage for commercial purposes will reduce the number of headaches in Mentia. It would not, however, completely invalidate the conclusion, should the people of Mentia prove to be big consumers of products containing flavor additives. In that case, even if an individual food portion containing salicylates might not be effective, the mass consumption of such foods will ensure that enough of the substance will be present in the people’s bodies, for it to be effective.

All in all, before making predictions about the health of Mentia, the health experts should take into consideration other factors that might influence the accuracy of their estimates. While they are not outright suggesting that people should consume more salicylates, their position of authority in the health field lends weight to their words and people that read the short snippet might be swayed by their argument. Given the potential impact, the health experts should take all adverse effects into account and consider studies that can corroborate or disprove the findings of the twenty-year study.