How do you attack this tough argument ?

[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."

[ruchia]

1. Study says sharp increase in vision problems in sunny regions over 3 years - but does not give any evidence that the people who have experienced it were actually using So-Low glasses.
2. It is stated that So-Low block a smaller proportion of the Sun's rays, including the type of rays known to damage the eyes - perhaps it would be worthwhile to find out if the rays that are not blocked by So-low may also be harmful.
3. Author concludes people should wear higher priced brands - but there is no evidence that those glasses also actually protect it. A brand like So-Low may be priced higher. Also, there is no evidence that wearing no glasses would be better than wearing So-Low glasses.

[e.cartman]

Originally Posted by ruchia

1. Study says sharp increase in vision problems in sunny regions over 3 years - but does not give any evidence that the people who have experienced it were actually using So-Low glasses.
2. It is stated that So-Low block a smaller proportion of the Sun's rays, including the type of rays known to damage the eyes - perhaps it would be worthwhile to find out if the rays that are not blocked by So-low may also be harmful.
3. Author concludes people should wear higher priced brands - but there is no evidence that those glasses also actually protect it. A brand like So-Low may be priced higher. Also, there is no evidence that wearing no glasses would be better than wearing So-Low glasses.

1. -- yes, argument says that the study suggests that so-low glasses may be harmful which may be author's misinterpretation of the study. Good point.

2 -- to attack the argument, we should probably support So-Low brand, not further disparage it. So don't see how this is helpful.

3 -- good point. higher price is no guarantee of better protection.

Thanks ruchia.

[ruchia]

regarding point 2 - what I meant was that it is known that So-Low brand blocks the harmful rays but it lets some other rays to pass. but if they are causing harm, then either the author needs to get confirmation/evidence from a physician that all the harmful rays are blocked or check what is the cause of their harm.

I think we should analyse the argument overall... not that we have to refute the author.

[ekitten]

I think the key fallacies are

1. "post hoc ergo propter hoc" (after the campaign there was a rise in eye-damage, therefore because of the campaign) and

2. false dilemma, e.g., you must choose expensive glasses or no glasses at all.

I've seen a real-life study like this indicating that wearing cheap glasses reduced squinting without reducing glare, thereby causing eye-damage. So a better alternative to no glasses at all might be cheap glasses plus squinting.

[e.cartman]

Yes post hoc definitely.

And false dichotomy too because instead of saying "dont use so-low" author says either use higher priced glasses or no glasses. There could be cheap glasses from other manufacturers that are as effective as expensive ones.

I think another point is unwarranted generalization. Study is restricted to sunny regions but conclusion is drawn on "anyone concerned about eye damage from the Sun"

We can also question the source of study. It need not be from independent body. May be competitor's biased campaign.

[ruchia]

Good points!