The argument concludes that in order to prevent absenteeism  in schools and workplaces,we should use Ichthaid-a nutruitional supplement drived from fish oil- as a good way to prevent colds which is the frequently given reason for absences from school and work.This conclusion is based on the premises that the fish consumption in nearby East Meria(EM) is very high,and that people in EM rarely visit the doctor for the treatment of colds,and that colds represent the most frequently given reason for absences from school and work.The reasoning in the argument is logically flawed,however,because it relies on numerous assumptions that appear wholly unsupported.
First,the author only points  out that high fish consumption parallels the low incidence of colds,but no direct evidence could illustrate the relationship.The argument claims that the low incidence of colds is because of the high consumption of fish in EM.However.the author overlooks a myriad of possible reasons that could lead to the low colds rate.It is entirely possible that the people in EM have a very healthy way of life.Perhaps the people in EM have a good routine for regular excercises to maintain a good fit.Besides,it is possible that EM is a coastal city so that the people there are more likely to consume more fish.Lacking sufficient evidence to support this assumption,this relationship is not valid.
Second,the argument claims that because colds represent the most frequently given reason for avsences from school and work, by preventing colds we can also prevent absenteeism.However,absenteeism is a very complicated problem that may resulted from a variety of reasons except colds.It is fairly possible that the work conditions in West Meria(WM) is not as good as that in EM so that workers in WM are more likely to look for some reasons to get away from the stressful tasks from work.The author fails to provide any information to substantiate this assumtion.
Finaly,the augument fails to take into account that the number of visits to doctors may not be a good indicator of incidence of colds.The speaker cites the study reports that EM residents do not go to see a doctor in assert that the residents have a lower rate of getting colds.We are told no information about this assumption.Perhaps,there are many people in EM who get colds every year, but due to some other reasons they do not incline to see a doctor.It is also possible that the doctor in EM are not reliable or knowledgable to be trusted by EM residents.Besides,there is no evidence provided about how many of these who frequently eat fish seldom catch colds.The argument fails to address this problem.
In conclusion,the argument that we shoud use fish products to prevent colds in order to prevent absenteeism in schools and workplaces is dubious.If the author validated the relationship between low incidence of colds and high consumption of fish,and demonstrated that colds is the only reason that causes absenteeism,and provided some evidence to support that the amount of number of vists to doctors is good indicator of incidence of colds,the argument would be on much firmer ground.Without additional support,however,there is not much reason that we should belive the conclusion.