Laboratory studies show that Saluda Natural Spring Water contains seve

Question

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.

ThatDudeKnows · Answer

tusharmrigwani

Overall, a very strong AWA. 5.75/6.

Great structure, strong intro and conclusion, good progression within each paragraph, and generally well-written.

One minor tweak that you may want to consider is easing up on the strong words: manipulates facts, distorted view, no supporting evidence whatsoever. Your goal on these is generally to make clear that there are doubts rather than to completely shoot the argument down. I think an essay that says "we can't be so sure" is best suited to a tone that's less condemning.

The only other thing is that when they make a conclusion about a comparison (in this case SNSW vs tap), be alert for the possibility that the comparison could actually lean the other way. You mention that tap might not be that bad, but that still seems to make assumptions that tap isn't better than SNSW, and we aren't told that's the case. What if tap also is bacteria-free, also has the same minerals as SNSW, is cheaper, and ALSO has addition minerals (or other benefits)?

Edited to add: Last little thing is that you may want to change "Finally" to "Thirdly" and introduce the penultimate paragraph with something like, "Finally, there are many unresolved questions that could influence the decision about the value of SNSW compared to tap water:"

tusharmrigwani · Answer

Thanks a lot ThatDudeKnows for your valuable feedback. Would ensure to incorporate your recommendations going forward./ PS - I had actually set the paragraph sequences as Thirdly and Finally for the respective paragraphs. But I decided to get rid of those becasue the starts for all the paragraphs was identical (Firstly, Secondly, Thirdly, Finally etc.) Would use Thirdly and Finally from now onwards.

Thanks and Regards.

tusharmrigwani · Answer

Hi Experts,

Please share your opinion/evaluation of the below mentioned AWA response.
Thanks in advance.

Question:

The following appeared in a memorandum from a member of a financial management and consulting firm:

“We have learned from an employee of Windfall, Ltd., that its accounting department, by checking about 10 percent of the last month’s purchasing invoices for errors and inconsistencies, saved the company some $10,000 in overpayments. In order to help our clients increase their net gains, we should advise each of them to institute a policy of checking all purchasing invoices for errors. Such a recommendation could also help us get the Windfall account by demonstrating to Windfall the rigorousness of our methods.”

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 the company should recommend all its clients to setup a policy for checking all its purchase invoices. This policy would leas to increase their net gains. This claim is based on the information that the accounting department of Windfall, Ltd. saved $10,000 last month by checking 10% of the puchase invoices. Stated in this way, the argument does not consider all contributing factors, on the basis of which the conclusion can be made. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.

Firstly, the argument is setup on the basis of the information of only about 10% of the purchasing invoices of the accounting department of Windfall, Ltd. This signals the possibility that the recommendation is based on insufficient evidence. It may be possible that only the invoices that were checked contained the overpayment errors, and that the other invoices may be in order. The argument would have been much clearer if the argument stated that the other invoices were also identified with these errors. Hence, the firm's recommendation is not made on solid grounds.

Secondly, the author does not consider the extensive time and effort that will have to spent by their clients in checking all the invoices. These would lead to additional expenses by the companies for hiring additional staff specifically for this activity, thereby leading to a reduction in net gains. If the invoices are in proper order and the increase in expenses is greater than the amount saved in overpayments, the company will suffer a net loss. This is opposite to the intent of the recommendation. Had the author mentioned that the invoice checking process would be automated or the costs associated would be negligible, the argument would be much clearer to support.

Thirdly, the author suggests that the recommendation would help the company get the Windfall account by demonstrating the rigorousness of their methods. This is again a weak and unsupported claim. The argument clearly mentions that it was Windfall, Ltd. and its accounting department who initiated this practice of checking invoices. Hence, there is no firm reason to believe that the leadership of Windfall, Ltd. will be impressed by some other company performing the same practice. This claim would be further strengthened if the author mentions some other supporting information of how the company would support Windfall in other verticals of their business. Without these conclusive details, this claim is more of wishful thinking rather than a deduction made from conclusive evidence.

Finally, the author fails to answer some important questions: Do all the clients of the company use purchase invoices? Do the clients of the company have a particular history of overpayments made in the past? Without convincing answers to these questions, the argument fails to consider all necessary factors that should be analyzed in order to arrive at the conclusion.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. The argument would be strengthened if the author had provided details around the practices and policies of the existing clients, and the financial cost implications of the invoice checking exercise. It is not possible to evaluate an argument without necessary details and supporting evidences, in this particular case the services and products that woulf make the company a valuable partner for Windfall. In the absence of such details and evidences, the argument is open to discussion and therefore inconclusive.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

AWA Score: 5 out of 6

Coherence and connectivity: 5/5  
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.

Paragraph structure and formation: 3/5   
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.

Vocabulary and word expression: 4/5 
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!

Good Luck

Laboratory studies show that Saluda Natural Spring Water contains seve

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards