Intern
Joined: 29 Jan 2017
Posts: 31
Location: Germany
Concentration: Strategy, Leadership
GPA: 3.3
WE:Consulting (Consulting)
One AWA a day! Day 8/11 - Please review my essay!
[#permalink]
14 May 2017, 05:32
My GMAT exam is on Thursday the 18th and to exercise the AWA I try to write one essay per day!
I am trying to improve my writing and I would appreciate your feedback very much!
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 . . . etc.
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 counterexamples 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 Saluda Natural Spring water is healthy because it contains many essential minerals, it does not contain bacteria, and the citizens of Saluda are healthier than the national average. Hence, the health benefits of drinking Saluda Natural Spring water outweigh its high price.
At first glance, this argument may seem somewhat convincing, though closer examination reveals examples of poor reasoning, ill-founded assumptions and lack of evidence. For instance, the argument fails to provide evidence of the health benefits for the water. Additionally, the good health of the citizens of Saluda is not an indicator for good water quality. And finally, it is doubtful whether the cost of the water is justified. Thus, the argument seems rather weak, dubious and unconvincing.
First, the argument states that the water is sterile and it contains several minerals that have positive health benefits. On the one hand, it is reasonable to believe that these are characteristics which a beneficial drink should have. On the other hand, while these are necessary preconditions for a drink to be healthy, they are by no means a proof of its positive effect. For example, the argument never states the amount of the minerals in the Saluda Natural Spring Water and it does not compare its content to that of other, cheaper waters. Additionally, the absence of bacteria is not an indicator of a healthy drink. Again, the argument provides no comparison to alternatives. Also, there are some bacteria that are beneficial for human health when consumed. Clearly, the information given in the argument does not proof the health benefit of the water. To make the argument more convincing, it should provide more supportive evidence of for its conclusion.
Second, the argument relies on the assumption that because the citizens of Saluda require less hospitalization than the national average, the town's water is the main contributing factor. While this is a tempting assumption, its truth is by no means obvious. To illustrate, consider the citizens of the Fijis, where the expensive Fiji water comes from. In the Fijis, people live much shorter lives on average than in the USA. Furthermore, it is quite possible that the citizens of Saluda do not drink the towns water. For example, the Bodensee that lies between Germany, Switzerland and Austria is the source for clean tap water which is tranpsorted hundreds of kilometers to other towns. However there are still people who live right at the shore of the Bodensee and their tap water comes from another source. The argument could be considerably strengthened if it clearly stated why the citizens of Saluda don't need to go hospitals as often as other people and how this is affected by the town's water.
Third, the argument never really addresses a cost-benefit analysis between drinking Saluda Natural Spring water and other beneficial activities. Without a comparison to alternatives, the argument cannot be convincing. Take as an example a three week trip to the Swiss Alps. The fresh, clean air is certainly beneficial for health, but the costs of the trip do not outweigh the benefits. Maybe it is much cheaper and better for ones health to do twenty minutes of sports each day. Clearly, a cost-benefit analysis must be done in order for the argument to be convincing.
In summary, the argument is not completely well-reasoned as it stands. To allow for a better evaluation of the argument, the author needs to provide more information on the health benefits of Saluda Natural Spring, the connection between the health of the Saluda's citizens and its water, and the cost-benefit relationship of the water in comparison with alternatives.