Here is an argument:
The government has announced that it wants to reduce the level of ill-health due to workplace stress. Ministers could learn a lot from a recent study of 8000 white-collar workers in America which found that men who had a high level of control over the way they carried out their jobs had a low rate of heart disease, a stress-related disease. Clearly, therefore, the most stressful jobs are those in which employees have little control over the pace of their work and how it is organised. If the government is serious about wanting to reduce the level of stress-related disease, then it needs to encourage employers to give their workers greater control over their work.
The part that I want to focus on is the one that says:
- High control implies low rate of heart disease.
- THEREFORE, little control implies high stress.
(Please assume true that the low incidence of heart disease was caused by a reduction in stress. Also, if you are someone who understands logic very well, please explain to me, using formal logic, why it's necessary to make this assumption.)
It would be much appreciated if you use formal logic in order to break down the argument and answer my two questions using that. Thank you in advance.