Laboratory studies show that Saluda Natural Spring Water contains

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 argument states that drinking Saluda Natural Spring Water instead of tap water would be a wise investment in good health. Stating it this way the argument fails to show several reasons on the basis of which it could be backed and reveals ill constructed logic and poor reasoning. The conclusion of the argument is based on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence and hence the agrument is unconvincing and weak.

First, the argument claims that the water Saluda Natural Spring has many minerals that are good for health and is bacteria free but that does not make it necessarily safe for drinking. Clearly, there is no evidence that this water is fit for drinking. If the author would have explicitly stated that the water is fit for drinking then the argument could have been a strong argument.

Second, the author assumes that since the water is bottled in the town of Saluda, the people drink the same water. What if the residents actually drink tap water and only export the bottled water? There is no evidence that the residents drink the same bottled water. Also, even if the residents do drink the same water, there is no evidence stating that the bottled water is obtained from Saluda Natural Spring.

Finally, for the sake of the argument let's assume that the water from Saluda Springs is safe and the residents actually drink this water. Even so, does it actually make the residents healthy? Clearly, there is a weak correaltion between drinking spring water and less frequency of being hospitalization. There could be other factors such as more exercise or better work-life balance that make the residents go to the hospitals less frequently.

In conclusion, the argument is unconvincing for the above stated reasons and is therefore flawed. The argument could be strengthened if the author had provided the relevant details such as is the Saluda Spring water safe to drink or do residents actually drink this same water. In order to assess the merits of a certain decision it is essential to have complete knowledge of all the contributing factors. In this particluar case correlation between drinking spring water and less frequency of being hospitalization. Without information on this, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.