The argument postulates that dental care is not a helpful tool for preventing tooth decay. To validate this conclusion the author cites lower level of tooth decay among Himalayan children from mountain region. Though tooth decay may not be correlated with number of dental visits per year, the argument has several logical fallacies that prevent from agreeing with the arguer and require different explanation for the phenomenon.
To begin with, the true reason of tooth decay can be merely attributed to access to dental care, but more to education on dental health. If someone does not brush his teeth at least twice a day and, preferably, use dental floss, his or her teeth will inevitably decay; and visiting a dentist on a monthly basis will prevent cavities from developing further but won't ever be stopped. So, may be american suburbs do not educate their children on importance of dental hygine, hoping that any cavity will be fixed at clinic, while Himalayan parent are well aware that dentists are unavailable because of some reason (expensive, or too far, or unprofessional, etc) and prefer to prevent issue rather than fix it later.
Though dental education is important and could be a good explanation of the phenomenon, more plausible explanation, from my point of view, rests on the assumption that Himalayan children have a very different diet compared to that of american children. Quantity of sugar that average american child consumes every year significantly exceeds norm. Today, sugar is present almost in any food: sauces, milk, baby food, yogurt, cereal. Obviously, a child exposed to such an egregious heaven suffers from elevated tooth decay level and obesity. Now compare that to the diet of remote Himalayan regions where boons of capitalistic world are at least not that well distributed and, probably, not that easily affordable.
In conclusion, the author is right that dental care does not prevent from tooth decay. Other matters do so: such as dental hygiene and diet.
The argument postulates that dental care is not a helpful tool for preventing tooth
decay
. To validate this conclusion the author cites lower level of tooth
decay
among Himalayan
children
from mountain region. Though tooth
decay
may not
be correlated
with number of dental visits per year, the argument has several logical fallacies that
prevent
from agreeing with the arguer and require
different
explanation for the phenomenon.
To
begin
with, the true reason of tooth
decay
can be
merely
attributed to access to dental care,
but
more to education on dental health. If someone does not brush his teeth at least twice a day and,
preferably
,
use
dental floss,
his or her
teeth will
inevitably
decay
; and visiting a dentist on a monthly basis will
prevent
cavities from developing
further
but
won't ever be
stopped
.
So
, may be
american
suburbs do not educate their
children
on importance of dental
hygine
, hoping that any cavity will be
fixed
at clinic, while Himalayan parent are well aware that dentists are unavailable
because
of
some
reason (expensive, or too far, or unprofessional, etc) and prefer to
prevent
issue
rather
than
fix
it later.
Though dental education is
important
and could be a
good
explanation of the phenomenon, more plausible explanation, from my point of view, rests on the assumption that Himalayan
children
have a
very
different
diet compared to that of
american
children
. Quantity of sugar that average
american
child consumes every year
significantly
exceeds norm.
Today
, sugar is present almost in any food: sauces, milk, baby food, yogurt, cereal.
Obviously
, a child exposed to such an egregious heaven suffers from elevated tooth
decay
level and obesity.
Now
compare that to the diet of remote Himalayan regions where boons of capitalistic world are at least not that well distributed and,
probably
, not that
easily
affordable.
In conclusion
, the author is right that dental care does not
prevent
from tooth
decay
. Other matters do
so
: such as dental hygiene and diet.