My response to kartikdatwani.
I think it is a weak 4 or a 3.5.
4.0. Identified and analyzes important features of the argument
The paper identified several important features of the argument. First, Saluda Natural Spring water may or may not beneficial for health depending on the concentration of various minerals in it. Also, the absence of bacteria is not necessarily a desirable feature. The paper thoughtfully explores those issues providing some clearly appropriate examples (magnesium ions, curd). Second, residents of Saluda may or may not drink the bottled water in question, and they may also have excellent health for other reasons. Some limited analysis of these observations is present. Third, the comparison with tap water may be unwarranted: tap water may actually be quite healthy. The point about tap water is not analyzed.
The paper can benefit from a more insightful analysis. For example, while it makes a strong point that the residents of Saluda may not even drink Saluda Natural Spring Water and thus demonstrates a significant gap in the argument, this is not where the real issue is. One small town, whether Saluda or any other town, is just not a representative sample. Thus, there is really no way to know if the people living there really benefit from this water and not from something else. Equivalently, there is no way to know if I can expect the same results from drinking this water. Even if it is established to be the case, regularly drinking this water may or may not be a wise investment since tap water is different at every location, Saluda water may have cheaper alternatives, etc.
3.0. Mainly analyzes tangential or irrelevant matters, or reasons poorly
While the paper analyzes several relevant issues, the reasoning is often illogical. The analysis often misinterprets the original argument, attributing to it something that was never stated or even implied.
Quote:
...Stated in this way the argument skips over several key factors on the basis of which it could successfully be evaluated.
Well, the author of the analysis is the one who restated the argument in this way, not the author of the original argument.
Quote:
It assumes, erroneously, that the mix of these minerals in the water will be beneficial for the human health.
This is what the argument suggests. However, it is too categorical to label this suggestion as erroneous. In fact, it is not even relevant whether Saluda Natural Spring Water is beneficial for the human health per se, for water is a necessity. We are trying to compare Saluda Natural Spring Water to tap water. Both may be harmful to human health, yet bottled water may be less harmful and thus a wiser investment.
Quote:
For example hard water contains a high concentration of Magnesium ions and this renders it unfit for drinking. However reducing the concentration of these ions can make the water fit for drinking.
It is not clear what is the relevance of the second sentence. The argument did not discuss any ways of reducing the concentration of minerals in Saluda Natural Spring Water.
Quote:
Also, Magnesium is required for good health. Hence, data regarding the concentration of these minerals is of utmost importance to the argument.
This logical transition should be clarified.
Quote:
The argument again fallaciously assumes that the absence of bacteria is a prerogative for good health.
I assume that "prerogative" should be read as "prerequisite". However, the argument does not assume that the absence of bacteria is absolutely necessary for good health. It only seems to suggest that the absence of bacteria is helpful, or that tap water tends to have some harmful bacteria.
Quote:
However, there are several perishable items that contain bacteira and are good for health.
While I can guess why perishable items were mentioned - they are perishable because of the bacteria in them - the essay does not explain it. Instead it simply introduces "perishable iterms" without any context. Somebody who does not know the connection between bacteria and perishability would be hopelessly confused at this point.
Quote:
And curd is in no way bad for health.
This is a very strong statement to make. What about lactose intolerant people?
Quote:
It implies, speciously, that the good health of residents of Saluda is because of the bottling of Saluda Natural Sping Water there.
No, it does not. The residents may be healthy because they are drinking the water from the spring. The bottling factory may make their health slightly worse by polluting the environment.
Quote:
They may have a better lifestyle, healthy eating habits or low stress levels. The argument assumes that this is not the case and in doing so it makes itself defective.
No, the argument does not assume that they have unhealthy eating habits and high stress levels. Besides, it is unclear what a "better" lifestyle would be.
Quote:
Here, the argument wrongly assumes that tap water is not good for health.
No, there is no such assumption. The argument only suggests that Saluda Natural Spring Water is better.
Quote:
Addition of some hard examples, and statistical and scientific data will certainly help to fortify the argument.
Don't be so certain. The addition of
relevant examples and data may help to fortify the argument. Simply adding
some examples may actually hurt the argument.
3.0. Is limited in the logical development and organization of ideas
In the second paragraph of the paper it is first claimed that the mix of these minerals in the water is not necessarily beneficial for the human health. Then the conlcusion is reached that
Quote:
Hence, data regarding the concentration of these minerals is of utmost importance to the argument.
It would be more logical to conclude that paragraph with "Hence, without the data regarding... it cannot be established that the mix of these minerals in this bottled water is beneficial for the human health".
In fact, the paper could be significantly strengthened by recommending the author of the original argument to include information about the concentrations of various minerals in Saluda Natural Spring Water and, of course, to give a scientific explanation for the healthy properties of Saluda Natural Spring Water instead of appealing to some citizens of some little town that have little to do with the bottles in my supermarket.
Quote:
For example, curd is formed by the replication of a bacteria in the environment of milk. And curd is in no way bad for health. Therefore, this premise needs more information to substantiate the argument.
It is unclear what kind of information is needed in this case. We already know that bacteria can be helpful (curd is an example) and that Saluda Natural Spring Water has no bacteria. The paper should make it more explicit. For example, it would be helpful to know what bacteria are contained in the tap water in various
regions of the country.
Quote:
However, it does not mention the number of residents of Saluda who actually drink the Saluda Natural Sping Water.
Well, what if it did mention that 5,000 residents of Saluda drink the Saluda Natural Spring Water? How would it help?
Quote:
Also, assuming the residents of Saluda drink Saluda Natural Sping Water...
This is not a very useful assumption. Some of them probably do.
4.0. The paper supports the main points of the critique
Some relevant support is provided. Information about magnesium ions and about curd is relevant and supports the critique. The discussion about the possible reasons for the good health of the residents of Saluda is also relevant and provides some support.
3.0. The paper does not convey meaning clearly.
Quote:
...drinking Saluda Natural Spring Water is a more viable and feasible investment than drinking tap water,...
The argument does not present drinking tap water as an investment, nor does it present Saluda Natural Spring Water as an investment. It presents substituting Saluda Natural Spring Water for tap water as an investment.
Quote:
The argument again fallaciously assumes that the absence of bacteria is a prerogative for good health.
Good health of what or of whom? The absence of bacteria in a human or in the water?
Quote:
Secondly, the argument states that residents of saluda are less frequently hospitalized when compared with the residents of the nation in which Saluda is.
"...in which Saluda is" is awkward.
Quote:
It states that Saluda is where the Saluda Natural Sping Water is bottled.
This word order is confusing and stylistically inappropriate in this context.
Quote:
It implies, speciously, that the good health of residents of Saluda is because of the bottling of Saluda Natural Sping Water there.
The meaning is difficult to understand.
Quote:
...the cause of less frequency of hospitalization in the residents of Saluda maybe different from the type of water they drink...
There are so many errors in this sentence that the intended meaning cannot be reconstructed.
Quote:
They may have a better lifestyle, healthy eating habits or low stress levels.
"Better" suggests a comparison with the national average. However, "healthy" and "low" are not comparative. Should "healthier" and "lower" be used instead?
Quote:
However, no support for such an assumption is present in the argument. Furthermore, in order to make this conclusion believable and effective
Are we talking about an assumption or about a conclusion? Also note the awkward "believable and effective".
4.0. Generally follows the conventions of standard written English but may have some flaws
Quote:
viable and feasible investment
Usage error? Drinking tap water is certainly more viable and feasible, unless one can die from it.
Quote:
...it could successfully be evaluated
Word order.
Quote:
...is a prerogative for good health
Prerequisite?
Quote:
...the cause of less frequency of hospitalization in the residents of Saluda maybe different from the type of water they drink
I guess, this should be considered an error in mechanics. Of course, the cause is different from the type of water.
Quote:
They may have a better lifestyle, healthy eating habits or low stress levels.
"Better", "healthy", "low" are not parallel. ("Better" is comparative.)
Quote:
in order to make this conclusion believable and effective
Word choice: "believable and effective".