The argument claims that although bottled Saluda Natural Spring Water may seem expensive it is better to drink it instead of tap water. To support this claim it cites studies that have shown that bottled water is full of necessary minerals and completely free of bacteria. Also, the argument states that citizens of Saluda are hospitalized less frequently than the national average. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on the assumption for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that bottled water is of higher quality than a tap water. The argument makes a claim that is not sufficiently substantiated by the evidence. For example, tap water could be of better quality than bottled water, but we do not know that since we do not have any results regarding the quality of tap water. Clearly, the argument is unconvincing. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that both types of water were tested and the results have shown that bottled water has much more minerals in it and no bacteria whatsoever in contrast to tap water and thus represents a far better choice.
Second, the argument states that residents of Saluda are healthier that the national average because they drink bottled water. This is again very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any correlation between the health of the Saluda residents and the bottled water. To illustrate, it is possible that people from Saluda eat healthy food, do not stress much and exercise regularly, thus preventing any need for hospitals and doctors. Also, it is possible that the degree of hospitalization of Saluda residents is just over the national average, proving that their health is not superior in contrast to other citizens of the country. If the argument had provided the evidence that the use of bottled water is the only thing that differentiate the residents of Saluda from other citizens of their country and that the residents of Saluda are significantly above the national hospitalization average only because they drink bottled water then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, is the bottled water of higher quality than the tap water? Is the use of bottled the only cause of wellbeing of Saluda’s residents? Without convincing answers to these questions, we are left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing, It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts.
Kudos if you like the post!
Failing to plan is planning to fail.