Laboratory studies show that Saluda Natural Spring Water contains seve

Hi Experts,
Please share your opinion/evaluation of the below mentioned AWA response. I have used the framework mentioned in the AWA post by chineseburned.
Thanks in advance.

Question:
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.

Answer:

The argument claims that people should consume Saluda Natural Spring Water instead of normal tap water, as it is a wise investment in good health. The reason for this recommendation is shown to be Saluda Natural Spring Water containing several minerals necessary for good health as well as absence of bacteria. Stated in this way, the argument manipulates facts and presents a distorted view of the reality. The argument relies on weak assumptions with negligible supporting evidence, on the basis of which it is difficult to arrive at the conclusion. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.

Firstly, the argument readily assumes that Saluda Natural Spring Water (SNSW) is completely safe for human consumption. Granted, SNSW contains several minerals essential for good health and is completely free of bacteria. However, the author fails to provide any information about whether SNSW contains any other toxic minerals which are harmful for human health. The author also does not mention anything about the absence of other harmful pathogens such as viruses, fungi etc which are dangerous to human health. Had the author explicitly mentioned these statements, it would have been much easier to evaluate the argument.

Secondly, the author fails to demonstrate any correlation between the bottling of SNSW and the rate of hospitalization of the residents of Saluda. There is no supporting evidence whatsoever mentioning that the residents of Saluda consume only Saluda Natural Spring Water, and that this consumption is the main reason of the rate of hospitalization being less than the national average. For instance, the residents of Saluda may be consuming normal tap water, but the air quality of Saluda is better than most other geographies and this is the major reason for less frequent hospitalizations among the residents. Without concrete evidences supporting the author's claim, the argument is prone to counterarguments.

Finally, the author compares Saluda Natural Spring Water to tap water and sets the argument on the basis that the former is better in quality, without mentioning any of the drawbacks of tap water and the correlation of tap water with rate of generally observed rate of hospitalization. It may be possible that all SNSW is only slightly better in quality than normal tap water. Without conclusive data to support the author's claims, one is left with an impression that is more of a wishful thinking rather than evidence-backed conclusive research.

The author fails to answer the following questions: Are there any alternative options other SNSW that are not expensive when compared to SNSW? What would be more financially relevant for the public in the long term: purchasing up a water treatment machine for tap water, or continously consuming SNSW. Without convincing responses to the following questions, the argument is deemed as one-sided without covering all possible considerations for the customer.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author provided all the relevant facts and supporting evidences for the overall safety of Saluda Natural Spring Water and the claim that less frequent hospitalization in the town of Saluda is primarily due to the consumption of SNSW. In order to assess the merits of a situation, it is necessary to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case, the argument fails to consider the alternatives and financial implications of consuming SNSW for a long period of time. Without these details, the argument is seen rather inconclusive and open to debate.