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 you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counter examples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
Answer-
The argument claims that Saluda Natural Spring Water, even though expensive, should be used for drinking and is a wise investment in good health. This conclusion is based on two premises. First, it contains several minerals and is free of bacteria, and second, the people living in the area where the bottle is packed are hospitalised less frequently than the national average. However, the conclusion bases on these premises unjustified and is open to question.
Firstly, having just minerals is not so much important as is having minerals in the form that the body can absorb easily. it might be possible that the minerals present might not get digested by the body.
Secondly, being free of bacteria is good but water is prone to other forms of microorganisms, such as viruses. There is a possibility that other forms of contamination might be present, leading to bad health.
Thirdly, the argument relies on assumptions that have no clear evidence. It states that the people in the region where the bottle is packed are hospitalised less frequently, it might be possible that even if they are hospitalised only 5 times, all these 5 times are due to this water. It is even possible that they might not use that water and thus less need for hospitalisation.
Lastly, It gives no data as to why it should be used instead of tap water. Maybe tap water already has all the benefits that one need from the water.
As it stands, the conclusion is weak. It could be strengthened if the article mentioned data regarding why it relied on the above assumptions and presented more information which could disapprove the above flaws. However, without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.