Sadly, I find that in the world of pets, the use of Statement Analysis is often necessary when bring your animal to the vet's office, as there is a great deal of pressure often placed upon the person to "do everything" for your pet, which may not always be in your pet's best interest.
Aside from the underwriting from major pet food manufacturers, as well as "vaccinosis" debates, and government control, here is a video from the early 90's.
One vet is a proponent of all natural eating, while the other represents a major dog food company.
Are you able to discern between the two vets, while ignoring the arguments, using only Statement Analysis?
If so, do you find one vet to be in need of more qualifiers than the other?
What do you conclude from the use of the qualifiers?
hint: try to ignore the money trail!