In response to the vitamin A deficiency among the people of Tagus, an impoverished nation, the author suggests that the government of Tagus should promote the new type of millet. This millet in discussion is an engineered one which has been developed by an international development organization but there may be questions about the authenticity of the new product. The question of whether there will be any resistance in the adoption of the engineered millet among the populous needs to be answered. Does the subsidy is enough for the feasibility of farming also needs to be explored before pushing for the new grain. Therefore, the argument presented by the author is based on incomplete information and illogical reasoning and hence is deeply flawed.

First of all, the questions of whether the said international development organization is capable of engineering a crop and whether the said crop has passed all the mandatory requirements of food safety need to be answered. If the data is available that the engineered millet has passed all the safety requirements of an engineered crop, the confidence for floating the crop in the market for eradicating the vitamin A deficiency might have been boosted but in the absence of the trial results, tests reports and the proven capability of the engineers of the said organizations, Government of Tagus should not float the modified millet in the market.
Secondly, to assume that the modified crop will be readily adopted by the mass is naive in its reasoning. To gauge the opinion of the mass about the new crop which is artificially engineered, a proper survey data needs to be collected to stop any brewing of discontent among the masses. The prevailing social stigma as it is an impoverished nation needs to be taken care of. For that, a proper campaign needs to be launched for advertising the benefits of using the new crops.

Finally, to assume that by merely providing subsidy on the new crop's seed will encourage its farming is unsound. The inclination of the farmers needs to be ascertained before subsidy is being provided so that the loss to the exchequer is reduced. The best way to gauge that is to analyse the alternatives the farmers have apart from farming the new crop and what profit they might get by farming various crops so that they may be encouraged not only for the benefits of crops health wise, but also by monetary wise.

In a nutshell, though the intention of the Government of the Tagus is noble, the above questions raise serious flaws in the argument of the author and hence the argument is unreasonable and unsound.