|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
06 Mar 2023, 19:18
Kudos
Bookmarks
Prompt:
“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."
Essay:
The argument presented in the magazine claims that Saluda Natural Spring Water is a wise investment in good health for the residents of Saluda because it contains many of the essential minerals and is 100 percent free of bacteria and beacuse the rate of hospitalization in the city is less than the national average. This argument is weak and unconvincing because it makes several assumptions about a phenonmenon and fails to consider other factors that are essential in evaluating its overall conclusion.
First, the argument is flawed because it suggests that residents of Saluda, the small town in which the water is bottled, are less frequently hospitalized than the nation's average. This claim is weak because the argument does not detail whether the residents of the city currently consume the water. Perhaps the water may only be bottled in Saluda and not actually consumed by its citizens. Therefore, the argument cannot convincingly draw a relationship between the consumption of the spring water and the hospitalization rate in Saluda. Even if residents did indeed consume the spring water, that relationship, which the argument seeks to establish, is unconvincing because the lower hospitalization rate in Saluda could be attributed to other factors that could promote health in Saluda such as better heath care facilities, lower pollution, a higher rate of obedience to road laws, etc. The argument could be signifcantly strengthened by presenting research that shows that the residents of Saluda drink the spring water and that minerals in the water cause a decreased likelihood of hospitalization.
In addition, the argument is flawed because it concludes that drinking Saluda Natural Spring Water instead of tap water is an investment in wise good health without differentiating the characteristics of tap water and the spring water. If tap water is not signifcantly worse than the spring water then the difference in the return on the investment of drinking tap and that of drinking spring water may be negligible, making it an unwise investment to purchase an expensive product that does not add much more value. One could also argue against the claim that drinking the spring water is a wise investment in good health if the water is signifcantly more expensive than tap water. If an individual spends $400 on yearly consumption of tap water but will spend $1200 yearly on Saluda Natural Spring Water, drinking the spring water will reduce the individuals disposable income by an additonal $800, money that could be used to cover medical expenses and promote the health of the individual. In such an example, drinking the spring water would be counterproductive to the resident's health. The argument could be made clearer by highlighting that the spring water is significantly better than tap water in terms of health benefits and by showing that drinking tap water in Saluda is detrimental to one's health.
In conclusion, the argument in the health-and-fitness magazine is deeply flawed because of the aformentioned reasons. It can be greatly bolstered by offering cogent evidence to support the numerous assumptions it made. However, because it failed to do so, the argument is weak, unconvincing, and open to debate.
“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."
Essay:
The argument presented in the magazine claims that Saluda Natural Spring Water is a wise investment in good health for the residents of Saluda because it contains many of the essential minerals and is 100 percent free of bacteria and beacuse the rate of hospitalization in the city is less than the national average. This argument is weak and unconvincing because it makes several assumptions about a phenonmenon and fails to consider other factors that are essential in evaluating its overall conclusion.
First, the argument is flawed because it suggests that residents of Saluda, the small town in which the water is bottled, are less frequently hospitalized than the nation's average. This claim is weak because the argument does not detail whether the residents of the city currently consume the water. Perhaps the water may only be bottled in Saluda and not actually consumed by its citizens. Therefore, the argument cannot convincingly draw a relationship between the consumption of the spring water and the hospitalization rate in Saluda. Even if residents did indeed consume the spring water, that relationship, which the argument seeks to establish, is unconvincing because the lower hospitalization rate in Saluda could be attributed to other factors that could promote health in Saluda such as better heath care facilities, lower pollution, a higher rate of obedience to road laws, etc. The argument could be signifcantly strengthened by presenting research that shows that the residents of Saluda drink the spring water and that minerals in the water cause a decreased likelihood of hospitalization.
In addition, the argument is flawed because it concludes that drinking Saluda Natural Spring Water instead of tap water is an investment in wise good health without differentiating the characteristics of tap water and the spring water. If tap water is not signifcantly worse than the spring water then the difference in the return on the investment of drinking tap and that of drinking spring water may be negligible, making it an unwise investment to purchase an expensive product that does not add much more value. One could also argue against the claim that drinking the spring water is a wise investment in good health if the water is signifcantly more expensive than tap water. If an individual spends $400 on yearly consumption of tap water but will spend $1200 yearly on Saluda Natural Spring Water, drinking the spring water will reduce the individuals disposable income by an additonal $800, money that could be used to cover medical expenses and promote the health of the individual. In such an example, drinking the spring water would be counterproductive to the resident's health. The argument could be made clearer by highlighting that the spring water is significantly better than tap water in terms of health benefits and by showing that drinking tap water in Saluda is detrimental to one's health.
In conclusion, the argument in the health-and-fitness magazine is deeply flawed because of the aformentioned reasons. It can be greatly bolstered by offering cogent evidence to support the numerous assumptions it made. However, because it failed to do so, the argument is weak, unconvincing, and open to debate.
07 Mar 2023, 10:43
Kudos
Bookmarks
Follow the AWA forum rules before posting here, you are not a newbie here anymore!
Read the same here in the post in the link below
https://gmatclub.com/forum/awa-forum-ru ... 64141.html
PS: This essay is being archived. Repost it according to rules.
Thank you!
Read the same here in the post in the link below
https://gmatclub.com/forum/awa-forum-ru ... 64141.html
PS: This essay is being archived. Repost it according to rules.
Thank you!
Moderators:
188 posts
