The arguer suggests that the ultrasound machine should be equiped to all the pharmacies to provide the service to people, therefore the overall medical costs will be decreased. In fact, the author has weakly to support his suggestion by using the evidence that the machine could detect the thickening of artery wall and it is assosiated with the elevated risk of stroke.
To the threshold problem, whether the artery links to the stroke, and how it links to the stroke. The writer points out that the researchers have shown the relationship between the two facts, unfortunatly, despite it tempts to indicates that thicken artery wall may increase the risk of stroke, there is no evidence to substantiate it.
In the second place, even assuming that the expanding thickness of the artery walls may catalyze the stroke, the argument is unwarranted for that the feasibilities of the advice is suspicious. Commonsense informs me that to press a probe in neck is absolutly of danger, for the neck has the acantha in it. If the technician has a little missing in detecting, it may cause great destroy to the people. Also, hardly can we to have every pharmacies to pay for such -seems to be expensive- machine.
In the third place, for lacing the information about the composing of the overall medical cost in Corpora, we can not conclude that the less patients with stroke may lead to the decrease of the costs. Having not ruling out the possibilities that the cost on stroke is a vfery small part of all and the pre-detection has noting to do with the save the cost, the assumption is short of convincing.
To sum up, the author ought to give more information on the link among artery, stroke and medical costs to strenthen his point of views.