Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
26 Aug 2020, 05:45
Kudos
Bookmarks
“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.”
The article in the health-and-fitness magazine attempts to argue that Saluda Natural Spring Water, despite its apparent cost, is a wise investment in good health and is superior to tap water. The argument is not logically sound, and presents weak supporting evidence for this claim.
The first issue with the argument is the use of the laboratory study implying that Saluda Natural Spring Water is a boon to ones health. Not only does the author confuse necessary versus sufficient conditions-while these minerals are necessary for good health they are not necessarily sufficient on their own-but they also fail to present any form of comparison with either a control, such as tap water, or a competing product. As a result, the information about the study merely implies that Saluda Natural Spring Water is not harmful outright. Had the author presented further data suggesting that Saluda Natural Spring Water contains more minerals necessary for good health than regular tap water, this premise would carry more weight.
The second major issue in the article is the failure to convincingly relate Saluda Natural Spring Water to the health of the residents of Saluda. The author suggests that since Saluda Natural Spring Water is bottled in Saluda and residents of Saluda are hospitalized less frequently than the national average, Saluda Natural Spring Water must be a contributing factor to the residents health. The author does not state what the source of the bottled water is-perhaps it is not the same source which people in Saluda normally drink from-or state that the residents regularly consume Saluda Natural Spring Water. Additionally, the author fails to accurately compare the population of Saluda with the national population. If Saluda has a much younger population than the national average then it is not a surprise that residents are hospitalized less frequently. Finally, even if the author had stated that the residents of Saluda both drink from the same water source that Saluda Natural Spring Water is bottled from and have comparable demographics to the national population, there is still the obvious possibility that the drinking water is not a significant cause for the apparent health of the town.
The health-and-fitness magazine does not provide sound argument for the consumption of Saluda Natural Spring Water. The author's reasoning is flawed, and there is a lack of material to back up their claims.
The article in the health-and-fitness magazine attempts to argue that Saluda Natural Spring Water, despite its apparent cost, is a wise investment in good health and is superior to tap water. The argument is not logically sound, and presents weak supporting evidence for this claim.
The first issue with the argument is the use of the laboratory study implying that Saluda Natural Spring Water is a boon to ones health. Not only does the author confuse necessary versus sufficient conditions-while these minerals are necessary for good health they are not necessarily sufficient on their own-but they also fail to present any form of comparison with either a control, such as tap water, or a competing product. As a result, the information about the study merely implies that Saluda Natural Spring Water is not harmful outright. Had the author presented further data suggesting that Saluda Natural Spring Water contains more minerals necessary for good health than regular tap water, this premise would carry more weight.
The second major issue in the article is the failure to convincingly relate Saluda Natural Spring Water to the health of the residents of Saluda. The author suggests that since Saluda Natural Spring Water is bottled in Saluda and residents of Saluda are hospitalized less frequently than the national average, Saluda Natural Spring Water must be a contributing factor to the residents health. The author does not state what the source of the bottled water is-perhaps it is not the same source which people in Saluda normally drink from-or state that the residents regularly consume Saluda Natural Spring Water. Additionally, the author fails to accurately compare the population of Saluda with the national population. If Saluda has a much younger population than the national average then it is not a surprise that residents are hospitalized less frequently. Finally, even if the author had stated that the residents of Saluda both drink from the same water source that Saluda Natural Spring Water is bottled from and have comparable demographics to the national population, there is still the obvious possibility that the drinking water is not a significant cause for the apparent health of the town.
The health-and-fitness magazine does not provide sound argument for the consumption of Saluda Natural Spring Water. The author's reasoning is flawed, and there is a lack of material to back up their claims.
Moderators:
189 posts
