|
|
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.
11 May 2017, 10:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
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.
The argument claims that by expensive drinking Saluda Spring water, people are making an investment in good health. Stated in this way, the argument makes so many assumptions for which necessary evidences are not provided. Hence, the argument is weak, unconvincing and flawed.
Firstly, the argument assumes that since the Saluda Natural Spring Water is bottled in the small town of Saluda, the residents of Saluda drink this natural spring water only. It is not necessary that just because the water is bottled in the town, the resident would drink only that water and not tap water. The claim would have been strengthened if there would have been convincing proof that residents of Saluda actually do consume Saluda Natural Spring Water.
Secondly, the argument claims that because residents of Saluda are hospitalized less frequently than the national average, they are in good health. Being hospitalized less frequently is not the only indicator of good health. The argument could have been much stronger if it explicitly stated or gave data about other health indicators of resident of Saluda.
Finally the argument states that good health can be attained just by drinking water containing minerals and water which is completely free of bacteria. Even though there may be some merit in this argument, water alone is not the only factor required for good health. In addition to water, diet, exercise, genes and many other factors play an important role in achieving good health. It would have been helpful if some amount of data have been provided on its effect on people having similar life style in terms of food and exercise.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned relevant facts. In order to access the merits of this argument, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this case, exact data of how many percentage of residents of Saluda actually consume this water and their overall health information along with their food and exercise habits. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated 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.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The argument claims that by expensive drinking Saluda Spring water, people are making an investment in good health. Stated in this way, the argument makes so many assumptions for which necessary evidences are not provided. Hence, the argument is weak, unconvincing and flawed.
Firstly, the argument assumes that since the Saluda Natural Spring Water is bottled in the small town of Saluda, the residents of Saluda drink this natural spring water only. It is not necessary that just because the water is bottled in the town, the resident would drink only that water and not tap water. The claim would have been strengthened if there would have been convincing proof that residents of Saluda actually do consume Saluda Natural Spring Water.
Secondly, the argument claims that because residents of Saluda are hospitalized less frequently than the national average, they are in good health. Being hospitalized less frequently is not the only indicator of good health. The argument could have been much stronger if it explicitly stated or gave data about other health indicators of resident of Saluda.
Finally the argument states that good health can be attained just by drinking water containing minerals and water which is completely free of bacteria. Even though there may be some merit in this argument, water alone is not the only factor required for good health. In addition to water, diet, exercise, genes and many other factors play an important role in achieving good health. It would have been helpful if some amount of data have been provided on its effect on people having similar life style in terms of food and exercise.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned relevant facts. In order to access the merits of this argument, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this case, exact data of how many percentage of residents of Saluda actually consume this water and their overall health information along with their food and exercise habits. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Moderators:
188 posts
