[e.cartman]

This is from the ETS pool. I could not attack it in anyway other than trying to discredit the "recent study" the argument refers to. Do you think you can attack other parts of this argument besides the study? (Please just mention any point briefly rather than writing the full essay)

The following was published by a consumer protection agency.
"Three years ago, So-Low launched a nationwide ad campaign, focusing heavily on sunny regions and distributing free sunglasses there. But although So-Low sunglasses cost less than higher-priced brands, they block a smaller proportion of the Sun's rays, including the type of rays known to damage the eyes even when the person wearing the sunglasses feels no discomfort. A recent study suggests that So-Low sunglasses can actually increase the risk of damage to people's eyes by creating a false sense of security. The study shows a sharp increase in the incidence of vision problems in the sunny regions over the past three years. These findings suggest that anyone concerned about eye damage from the Sun should avoid So-Low brand and instead either pay for higher-priced brands or wear no sunglasses at all."