|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
dreamcatcher007
Joined: 13 Jul 2018
Last visit: 13 Jul 2025
Posts: 8
Own Kudos:
Location: Philippines
Schools: INSEAD Jan 22 intake (A)
13 Oct 2018, 03:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
The following appeared in an article in a health–and–fitness magazine:
“Laboratory studies show that Saluda Natural Spring Water contains several of the minerals necessary for good health and that it is completely free of bacteria. Residents of Saluda, the small town where the water is bottled, are hospitalized less frequently than the national average. Even though Saluda Natural Spring Water may seem expensive, drinking it instead of tap water is a wise investment in good health.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counter examples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The author argues that Saluda Natural Spring Water is a wise investment in health. To support this two pieces of evidence were cited: the presence of minerals necessary for good health and absence of bacteria; and that the residents of Saluda, the town where the water is bottled, are hospitalized less frequently than national average. This argument suffers from major flaws ranging from incorrect causation, ill-conceived evidence, and faulty generalizations.
Firstly, mere presence of minerals does not automatically makes Saluda Spring Water healthier than tap water. In fact, there is a huge chance that tap water also contains naturally occuring minerals, perhaps even more than Saluda. Also, said Spring Water has no competitive advantage over tap water in terms of absence of bacteria, since tap water also undergoes an intense filtering system and chemical treatment to remove impurities and harmul bacteria. Otherwise, water will not be allowed by the government to go into the tap of the various households.
Secondly, residents of Saluda were said to be hospitalized less frequently than the national average. However, there are a number of other factors that may have caused this, such as healthy diet, less pollution, and good hygiene and sanitation. This piece of evidence cannot be entirely attributable to the consumption of Saluda Natural Spring Water. Furthermore, although said spring water is being bottled at Saluda, there is no assurance that the residents are consuming it, thus further invalidating the conclusion.
To improve the argument, tap water must also be tested in the laboratory to determine what minerals are contained, and to check absence of bacteria. They must be subjected to the same types of laboratory tests as Saluda Spring Water so that the results will be comparable. Moreover, the author must conduct a full blown research with a sample size representative of the entire population and big enough to prove or disprove a hypothesis (that drinking Saluda Spring Water is healthier than drinking tap water). The people will be separated into two groups, one is the experimental group while the other is the control group. The control group must be placed under the same exact conditions (e.g. diet, hygiene, physical exercise, etc) as the experimental group except for one: they would be drinking tap water. With this method, it can be determined whether the type of water being consumed is really the cause of these health benefits.
“Laboratory studies show that Saluda Natural Spring Water contains several of the minerals necessary for good health and that it is completely free of bacteria. Residents of Saluda, the small town where the water is bottled, are hospitalized less frequently than the national average. Even though Saluda Natural Spring Water may seem expensive, drinking it instead of tap water is a wise investment in good health.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counter examples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
The author argues that Saluda Natural Spring Water is a wise investment in health. To support this two pieces of evidence were cited: the presence of minerals necessary for good health and absence of bacteria; and that the residents of Saluda, the town where the water is bottled, are hospitalized less frequently than national average. This argument suffers from major flaws ranging from incorrect causation, ill-conceived evidence, and faulty generalizations.
Firstly, mere presence of minerals does not automatically makes Saluda Spring Water healthier than tap water. In fact, there is a huge chance that tap water also contains naturally occuring minerals, perhaps even more than Saluda. Also, said Spring Water has no competitive advantage over tap water in terms of absence of bacteria, since tap water also undergoes an intense filtering system and chemical treatment to remove impurities and harmul bacteria. Otherwise, water will not be allowed by the government to go into the tap of the various households.
Secondly, residents of Saluda were said to be hospitalized less frequently than the national average. However, there are a number of other factors that may have caused this, such as healthy diet, less pollution, and good hygiene and sanitation. This piece of evidence cannot be entirely attributable to the consumption of Saluda Natural Spring Water. Furthermore, although said spring water is being bottled at Saluda, there is no assurance that the residents are consuming it, thus further invalidating the conclusion.
To improve the argument, tap water must also be tested in the laboratory to determine what minerals are contained, and to check absence of bacteria. They must be subjected to the same types of laboratory tests as Saluda Spring Water so that the results will be comparable. Moreover, the author must conduct a full blown research with a sample size representative of the entire population and big enough to prove or disprove a hypothesis (that drinking Saluda Spring Water is healthier than drinking tap water). The people will be separated into two groups, one is the experimental group while the other is the control group. The control group must be placed under the same exact conditions (e.g. diet, hygiene, physical exercise, etc) as the experimental group except for one: they would be drinking tap water. With this method, it can be determined whether the type of water being consumed is really the cause of these health benefits.
Moderators:
188 posts
