Project: analysis of the official resolution to implement the IEPS tax, to sugar beverages

1: what are the arguments of the DOF article?

That there is a high prevalence of overweight, obesity, and diabetes that is being caused by the
high consumption of sugar-added beverages.

2: Which consistencies or inconsistencies did you find in the document?

The article consistently uses the "high prevalence of overweight and obesity..." but
inconsistently adds diabetes to the discussion in order to connect it to government strategies and
development plans. Another inconsistency is the article "Calls to define public policies that favor
reduction of sugar added beverage consumption" yet the article ends with implementing taxes which in
no way "reduces" consumption.

3: Which biases or errors did you find in the arguments (Bad arguments, fallacies, omissions, false
inferences, and deceptive statistics)?

Throughout the article they mention a "high prevalence of..." but never reference the source or
the study performed to make such a claim. It is also stated "Any effort to diminish the adverse effects...
should be analyzed..." but continues to jump directly to declaring a "Fiscal measure will most likely
contribute to the aforementioned purposes". This leads me to believe they decided in advance of the
analysis what the solution should be and will execute anyways.

4: Can conclusions be drawn from the arguments?

I would say that although obesity and diabetes were a concern in Mexico during that time, this
article does not provide a clear conclusion to its own argument. It did not define how taxing the
beverage importer and producer would lead to a reduction of beverage consumption at the individual
level.

5: is the person's point of view derived from his or her research?

The article leads with the impression of a well informed and researched individual but quickly
falls apart as none of that research is shared with the audience and little of the information used
connects directly with each other. The article ends sounding like a political maneuver to make tax
revenue under the guise of protecting the people.

6: How are you ordering your own arguments (to avoid being unfocused)?

I ordered my argument in a question / answer format.

Company General Use