Statistics collected from dentists indicate that three times more men than women faint while visiting the dentist. This evidence suggests that men are more likely to be distressed about having dental work done than women are. Thus, dentists who advertise to attract patients should target the male consumer and emphasize both the effectiveness of their anesthetic techniques and the sensitivity of their staff to nervous or suffering patients.

The given argument suggests that men are more distressed as compared to women when they have an appointment with the dentist. The argument is based on the evidence, collected from dentists, which indicates that three times more men than women faint while visiting the dentist. The arguer uses the above-mentioned assumption and evidence to draw the conclusion that dentists should now focus on attracting male patients by highlighting their effective anesthetic techniques and bringing out the qualities of their staff that are adept in handling nervous patients. The argument is plagued by logical flaws that fail to convince the reader that the conclusion is justified.

The backbone of the given argument is the statistics that have been collected from dentists. However, the statistics are found to be inadequate to prove the conclusion that has been drawn. Firstly, there is no mention of the number of dentists who were a part of the survey. The arguer does not confirm that they represent the entire dentist fraternity in such a way that the statistics collected from them can be utilized to make such a sweeping statement related to the dental profession as the conclusion made by this argument.

The argument relies on the assumption that men faint while visiting the dentist as they are distressed about the pending dental work. The arguer does not mention the other reasons that may have led to a higher number of men fainting as compared to women. It is likely that the men who were a part of the statistics were older as compared to the women and therefore, their age played a major part in their falling unconscious while visiting the dentist. Additionally, it is likely that the number of men, visiting the dentists who had provided the statistics, were more than the number of women. In such a case, the statistics would be lopsided and the assumption based on the statistics would be entirely false.

There is no indication in the argument that proves that a higher number of men are fainting as compared to the women because they are not aware of the benefits of anesthesia or because they do not know that the dentists’ staff is sensitive to the needs of nervous patients. Therefore, in the absence of evidence that proves such a relationship, the conclusion that advertising these aspects will help in attracting men to dental clinics is highly unconvincing. Moreover, the argument does not explicitly prove that such an advertisement will attract only men and not women. Additionally, there is no indication of how effective advertisements have been in attracting patients in the past. In view of the above factors, it cannot be assumed that the proposed advertisements will succeed in having the intended effect.

The argument could have been substantiated if the arguer had presented sufficient evidence to prove that none of the other reasons is applicable and therefore, the men are actually fainting due the distress related to dental work. In such a case, the conclusion of the argument would have been justified as the advertisement would have alleviated the fear of visiting the dentist and would have led to a lesser number of men fainting before visiting the dentist. Moreover, the argument could have been strengthened further by providing accurate details of the statistics being referred to in the argument. In the absence of such evidence, the argument sounds highly unconvincing and logically unstable.