|
|
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.
28 Mar 2013, 02:49
Kudos
Bookmarks
Please rate my first AWA attempt and provide some suggestions.
The following appeared in an article in a health and fitness magazine:
"Scientific research has shown that Clear-One Bottled Water has many minerals needed for good health and that it is totally free of bacteria. Residents of the town where the water is bottled get sick less frequently than the national average. Even though Clear-One is higher-priced than the other bottled waters, it is a good long-term investment in your health."
My Response :-
The Author concludes that even though Clear One Bottled water is high priced, it is a long term health investment. To back this conclusion, Author provides scientific claims but in doing so introduces serious flaws that overlooks the argument and hampers the overall judgement.
To start with, Author gives scientific results that Clear One Bottled Water has many minerals needed for good health and is totally free of bacteria but what about the other important factors that makes drinking water potable? The Author overlooks the other important elements such as Purity and quality of water used, source of the water, effectiveness of the water plant and overall hygiene deployed at the plant. Probably if the author had explained a bit about the water plant and its functionality, it would have helped the argument.
Secondly, Author commits the fallacy of comparing Apples with Oranges. Health of the residents of the town where water is bottled has no relevance on the claim of the contents of the bottle. This finding should rather be based on people who actually purchase and drink the bottled water. Moreover, comparing an area's health to the national average does not provide an effective comparison as there could be various factors involved in this finding such as quality of air of that particular area and overall metabolism of the people than just the bottled drinking water.
Because the argument leaves out several key issues, this argument is not sound or persuasive. If the Author had justified the high price and explained the steps taken out to bottle the water, it would have improved the overall argument efficacy.
Thanks in advance.
The following appeared in an article in a health and fitness magazine:
"Scientific research has shown that Clear-One Bottled Water has many minerals needed for good health and that it is totally free of bacteria. Residents of the town where the water is bottled get sick less frequently than the national average. Even though Clear-One is higher-priced than the other bottled waters, it is a good long-term investment in your health."
My Response :-
The Author concludes that even though Clear One Bottled water is high priced, it is a long term health investment. To back this conclusion, Author provides scientific claims but in doing so introduces serious flaws that overlooks the argument and hampers the overall judgement.
To start with, Author gives scientific results that Clear One Bottled Water has many minerals needed for good health and is totally free of bacteria but what about the other important factors that makes drinking water potable? The Author overlooks the other important elements such as Purity and quality of water used, source of the water, effectiveness of the water plant and overall hygiene deployed at the plant. Probably if the author had explained a bit about the water plant and its functionality, it would have helped the argument.
Secondly, Author commits the fallacy of comparing Apples with Oranges. Health of the residents of the town where water is bottled has no relevance on the claim of the contents of the bottle. This finding should rather be based on people who actually purchase and drink the bottled water. Moreover, comparing an area's health to the national average does not provide an effective comparison as there could be various factors involved in this finding such as quality of air of that particular area and overall metabolism of the people than just the bottled drinking water.
Because the argument leaves out several key issues, this argument is not sound or persuasive. If the Author had justified the high price and explained the steps taken out to bottle the water, it would have improved the overall argument efficacy.
Thanks in advance.
Moderators:
188 posts
