The general structure of your sentences is good, and I wish you learn more from SC to make it better in the future.
I'm currently on day six of the
Magoosh 3-month program with a focus on math. I recognize that AWA isn't that important, but getting at least a 4 is important. I'd love any feedback possible on my first attempt to understand how much time I actually need to put in to AWA. I finished in about 25 minutes (including brainstorming and proof-reading), so I do have additional time for extra things you may recommend. I really appreciate it, thank you!
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 goodhealth 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 claims that Saluda Natural Spring Water is better for health than tap water. Stated in this way, the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation and fails to mention several key factors for analysis. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First,
the argument readily assumes that all bacteria are bad for health (1). This is a stretch because it implies a definitive line of reasoning. For example, some bacteria are important for a healthy gut.
The complete exclusion of bacteria in Saluda Natural Spring Water may not be beneficial for consumers. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated data that demonstrates no bacteria in water is better for health than water with some types of bacteria.
Second, the argument claims that residents
“are hospitalized less frequently than the national average (2).” The author fails to include data for comparison,
indicating there may not be a significant statistical difference between the rates of hospitalization (3). In addition,
since the town of Saluda is referred to as small, the residents may have less access to hospitals. In Saluda, there may not be a hospital, meaning people only go for extreme situations and instead visit a clinic in Saluda. If the argument provided hospitalization data that compared Saluda to small towns with a similar number of hospitals, it would have been a lot more convincing.
Finally, the argument claims that “Saluda Natural Spring Water contains several of the minerals necessary for good health.”
The author fails to mention how many minerals the spring water contains (4), and how it compares to tap water. For example, tap water contains fluoride , an important mineral for human health. To build a more convincing argument, the author could have included data that demonstrated which minerals Saluda Natural Spring Water had that tap water does not.
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.
In order to best access a situation in its entirety (5), it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
(1) the stimulus didn't claim that bacteria is bad for health. The author mentioned this info to hint that bacteria-free water is healthier.
(2) I think you should rephrase it, not copying it between brackets.
(3) Lack of data can't mean that there may not be statistical difference. You can't say that the author's information is wrong. But you can attack it in other different ways such as the lack of more accurate info about the types and severity of diseases for which citizens are hospitalized, or mentioning that large cities involve other factors that increase hospitalization such as car accidents and transmitted diseases due to higher population, and difference in diet habits, factors that affect the statistical differences just because of the location, per capita, income and modernity.
(4) Not mentioning the number of them or mentioning them by name doesn't weaken the author. remember you have to deal with it as true. but you can attack its accuracy such as failing to mention whether the concentrations of these minerals are better than that of tap water ... maybe more than needed concentration would cause negative effects.
close
05 Jun 2019, 11:08
..way to go . I will give you a 5 for this
