Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
12 Dec 2018, 03:01
Kudos
Bookmarks
Prompt:
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.”
Essay :
The argument states that drinking Saluda Natural Spring Water is a wise investment in good health for the residents of Saluda, even though it is expensive. In support of his claim, the author cites laboratory studies that show that Saluda Natural Spring Water contains several of the minerals necessary for good health and that it is completely free of bacteria. Stated in this way, the argument manipulates facts and creates a distorted view of the situation and fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.
Firstly, the author assumes that the fact that Saluda Natural Spring Water contains several of the minerals necessary for good health is enough to recommend it as a replacement to the bottled water. The author seems to blindly rely on just one laboratory result that indicated the water to be free of bacteria. It is highly possible that the test conducted was not highly equipped to test the presence of any other microorganism. In that case, it can be hazardous for the health of the people. Had the author clearly mentioned the procedure followed in the study and reliability of the test conducted, the argument would have been a bit convincing.
Secondly, the author seems to draw conclusions from the meaningless correlation of the use of bottled water and the number of people hospitalised. There is no reason given to believe that the low number of people hospitalised in Saluda is because they drink bottled water and that the likelihood of them falling sick of contaminated water is low. There could be a number of reasons that lead to low rate of hospitalisation in Saluda. It could be possible that Saluda is small town with usually small number of road accidents. Thus, the argument is easily refutable and therefore, weak.
Thirdly, the author gives no reason why bottled is not as good as Natural Spring water or why less expensive bottled water is not a wise investment in good health. Had the author given relevant evidence, the argument would have made any sense.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if it clearly mentioned all the relevant facts behind assumptions. In order to assess the merits of certain conclusion, it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors. Without this information, the argument is a mere wishful thinking.
THANK YOU!
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.”
Essay :
The argument states that drinking Saluda Natural Spring Water is a wise investment in good health for the residents of Saluda, even though it is expensive. In support of his claim, the author cites laboratory studies that show that Saluda Natural Spring Water contains several of the minerals necessary for good health and that it is completely free of bacteria. Stated in this way, the argument manipulates facts and creates a distorted view of the situation and fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.
Firstly, the author assumes that the fact that Saluda Natural Spring Water contains several of the minerals necessary for good health is enough to recommend it as a replacement to the bottled water. The author seems to blindly rely on just one laboratory result that indicated the water to be free of bacteria. It is highly possible that the test conducted was not highly equipped to test the presence of any other microorganism. In that case, it can be hazardous for the health of the people. Had the author clearly mentioned the procedure followed in the study and reliability of the test conducted, the argument would have been a bit convincing.
Secondly, the author seems to draw conclusions from the meaningless correlation of the use of bottled water and the number of people hospitalised. There is no reason given to believe that the low number of people hospitalised in Saluda is because they drink bottled water and that the likelihood of them falling sick of contaminated water is low. There could be a number of reasons that lead to low rate of hospitalisation in Saluda. It could be possible that Saluda is small town with usually small number of road accidents. Thus, the argument is easily refutable and therefore, weak.
Thirdly, the author gives no reason why bottled is not as good as Natural Spring water or why less expensive bottled water is not a wise investment in good health. Had the author given relevant evidence, the argument would have made any sense.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if it clearly mentioned all the relevant facts behind assumptions. In order to assess the merits of certain conclusion, it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors. Without this information, the argument is a mere wishful thinking.
THANK YOU!
Moderators:
188 posts
