In fulfillment for the requirements for the EdX course, Critical Thinking.

1. CHINASA MBA
1 What are the arguments of
the DOF article?
Sugar-sweetened beverage are the cause of obesity and overweight.
The high consumption of sugar-added beverages contributes notoriously to excess
energy intake and is an important factor in the development of overweight and
obesity in Mexico, representing a call to define public policies that favor the
reduction of sugar-added beverage consumption.
2 Which consistencies or
inconsistencies did you find
in the document?
Here the government problem first was overweight, obesity and diabetes and for which they
have increased tax on sweetened beverages. What has sweetened beverage got to do with
hypertension?
If between 2013 and 2018 the govt has a plan to protect the citizens, promote their health,
and also has a prevention policy of these disease, there should be no need talking about
taxes on beverages now. There is inconsistency between the present and the past policy on
health issues.
They did not say the content of their health promotion plan and their preventive health care
plan. Good health promotion with informed knowledge can take care of overweight, obesity,
and diabetes e.g., good exercise, healthy eating habit and enough sleep, if achieved will
lead to good health which includes normal weight and body mass index which is used to

2. calculate overweight. Diabetes is partly hereditary and can be induced by other disease
condition as well as unhealthy lifestyle.
There are several health promotion awareness campaigns and policies that would have
solved the problem of obesity, overweight and diabetes. As these are not caused by
sweetened beverages alone.
In the community there are people who need these beverages for even health reason, if
taxes are increased, they can no longer afford it.
Good community health education is all they need and not taxes on sweetened beverages.
People need education as to make informed decisions about their health.
No matter how high the tax, people will still buy it, even more believing it is for the rich and
will make things worse.
Also, the document said it is essential to reinforce effective policies and programs for
obesity prevention, but failed to mention the programs?
I think the document presented a strategy more interested on making money for the
government, than on promoting citizens’ health.
3 Which biases or errors did
you find in the arguments
(bad arguments, fallacies,
 High sugar intake being the cause of overweight, obesity and diabetes.
 There was no statement on the objective method employed for the calculation of
overweight and obesity

3. omissions, false inferences
and deceptive statistics)?
 Diabetes is not only caused by too much sugar but too much sugar can make it worse.
 There is no statistics to show to buttress the points of the argument presented. The
argument was more or less a generalized assumption statement.
 There were no actual medical tests done for the people referenced in the argument,
to know for certain who is diabetic, and the possible cause based on a doctor’s
interview with them. There should be a check on whether they have any other
underlining medical problems that may have affected the internal organs that
produce insulin?
4 Can conclusions be drawn
from the arguments?
The govt may really be concerned about the health of the citizens but there is no evidence
that they have done the needful in the area of public health promotion and education. The
people proposing the taxes may just be more interested in the returns from the products
more than the health of the community.
5 Is the person’s point of view
derived from his or her
research?
I don’t think the person’s point of view is derived from a research because there are no such
references. The bibliography did not open up, but even if it did, there should have been in-
text references in the article itself, especially table of statistics. The statistics should clearly
state an estimate on how many people are in the diabetic, obsessed and overweight
category in Mexico.

4. 6 How are you ordering your
own arguments (to avoid
being unfocused)?
I see this as the Mexican government trying to manage a supposed crisis. However, I looked
out for planned actions that can bring about positive changes for the community like policies
to really promote health through informed knowledge, but there was really none. There was
no community engagement to really assess the populace’s felt need which would have
helped in the decision making process for the government.
To remain focused in constructing my own argument, I asked myself some ‘whys’ like:
 Why is the government assuming that people are getting obsessed, overweight and
diabetic due to sugar intake?
 Why was there no community engagement before reaching the decision of imposing
higher taxes on sugar?
 Why was there no statistics prepared to effectively convince people?
 Why will the government really want to increase tax on sugar just to dissuade the
populace from excessive sugar consumption?
Probing for answers to these questions helped me look holistically at purpose for all facets of
the issue on ground. Importantly, what data recent does the government have to draw their
conclusions? What principles enabled their supposition (as it is improper to make
suppositions without reference) in this issue? Did they ever think of the aftermath
implications of their decisions if they are implemented?