The argument claims that the major increase in new cases of adult-onset diabetes during the past decade is the result of poor nutrition,the argument further claims the increase is due to lack of government control over food quality available at low prices.Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated.the conclusion of argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence.Hence the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.

Firstly, the argument readily assumes that the increase in new cases is only due to poor nutrition which may or may not be true.The statement is a stretch as no evidence is provided for this claim.Adult-onset diabetes can be caused by other factors as well for example hereditary factor- it is known that families which have a history of diabetes have more common cases of the disease than families without any history of diabetes.New cases of adult-onset diabetes can also occur due to patient’s sedentary lifestyle. Clearly the argument fails to consider other factors of diabetes.The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that new cases in which cause has been established as poor nutrition, can be reduced by food control.

Second the argument claims that if the government made the food manufacturers include more vitamins and minerals in the products, rate of diabetes will be reduced .This is again a weak and unsupported claim as argument does not demonstrate any correlation between low food nutrition value and increase in number of diabetes cases.If the argument had provided evidence that consumption of junk food products with low levels of vitamins saw an increase in diabetes cases then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.

Finally,the claim that increase in cases is due to food products available at low prices is flawed.What about nutrition value of food products available at normal or high prices?Also the argument claims if the control is exercised, the rate will be reduced significantly but argument fails to mention how much reduction is significant?Without convincing answers to these questions,one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than a substantive 

evidence.

In conclusion,the argument is flawed for above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing.It could be considerably strengthened if author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts.Without this information ,the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.