Laboratory studies show that Saluda Natural Spring Water contains seve

I certainly like your style of writing. Had I been the examiner I would've awarded 5 points to you. .


This is what I wrote for the same topic -


In a feeble attempt to conclude that drinking Saluda Natural Spring Water is a more viable and feasible investment than drinking tap water, the argument premises itself on fallacious and unconvincing assumptions. The argument claims that laboratory studies have shown Saluda Natural Sping Water to contain numerous minerals necessary for good health. Also, it claims that residents of Saluda are hospitalized less frequently than the national average. Stated in this way the argument skips over several key factors on the basis of which it could successfully be evaluated. As a result, the argument is fundamentally flawed, in that it makes a number of unwarranted assumptions and is riddled with serious logical gaps.

Most conspicuously, the argument states that laboratory results have found several minerals good for the health in Saluda Natural Sping Water. It assumes, erroneously, that the mix of these minerals in the water will be beneficial for the human health. However, no data regarding the ratio in which these minerals are mixed and the chemical composition of the compounds formed by these minerals is provided. For example hard water contains a high concentration of Magnesium ions and this renders it unfit for drinking. However reducing the concentration of these ions can make the water fit for drinking. Also, Magnesium is required for good health. Hence, data regarding the concentration of these minerals is of utmost importance to the argument. Secondly, laboratory studies have found no traces of bacteria in the Saluda Natural Sping Water. The argument again fallaciously assumes that the absence of bacteria is a prerogative for good health. However, there are several perishable items that contain bacteira and are good for health. For example, curd is formed by the replication of a bacteria in the environment of milk. And curd is in no way bad for health. Therefore, this premise needs more information to substantiate the argument.

Secondly, the argument states that residents of saluda are less frequently hospitalized when compared with the residents of the nation in which Saluda is. It states that Saluda is where the Saluda Natural Sping Water is bottled. However, it does not mention the number of residents of Saluda who actually drink the Saluda Natural Sping Water. It implies, speciously, that the good health of residents of Saluda is because of the bottling of Saluda Natural Sping Water there. This implication is absolutely absurd and illogical. Also, assuming the residents of Saluda drink Saluda Natural Sping Water, the cause of less frequency of hospitalization in the residents of Saluda maybe different from the type of water they drink. They may have a better lifestyle, healthy eating habits or low stress levels. The argument assumes that this is not the case and in doing so it makes itself defective.

Finally, the argument concludes that even though Saluda Natural Sping Water is expensive, drinking it instead of tap water is a wise investment in good health. Here, the argument wrongly assumes that tap water is not good for health. However, no support for such an assumption is present in the argument. Furthermore, in order to make this conclusion believable and effective more data to support it is required. In conclusion, the argument is unpersuasive, flawed and illogical. Addition of some hard examples, and statistical and scientific data will certainly help to fortify the argument.


Please rate my essay. Thank you in advance.

A response to smartinezpuppo.
My grade is: 3.0.

3.0. Does not identify or analyze most of the important features of the argument, although some analysis is present

The essay is making two points. The first point is that Saluda's tap water may be as healthy as the bottled spring water. This point is somewhat irrelevant since the quality of tap water in Saluda is of no interest - however, it can be generalized to an observation that the quality of tap water in other locations may also be high. (It is said that the standard for tap water in NYC is higher than the standard for bottled water in NYC. Never checked if it was true.) The second point is that Saluda's residents may be less frequently hospitalized for all kinds of reasons.

Some analysis is present, but most of the important features of the original argument are missed. If you replace "Saluda Natural Spring Water" with "apples" in the original argument, and you will see, how many things you have missed
Specifically.

1.It is unclear whether Saluda Spring Water is healthy at all. Almost any water would contain some minerals necessary for good health (how much?) The absence of bacteria is not necessarily a good thing either.
2. It is not clear whether the residents of Saluda drink the Saluda Spring Water at all. Even if they do drink it, they may be drinking it from the spring. As the water is bottled and transported, it may be losing some of its beneficial qualities.
3. Being hospitalized less frequently is not necessarily a sign of good health. Perhaps the health care in Saluda is not affordable or the hospital is too far away.
4. A comparison with the national average is almost meaningless. There are MANY cities and towns where people are hospitalized LESS frequently than the national average, just like there are MANY cities and towns where people are hospitalized MORE frequently than the national average. It is an oversimplification, but roughly speaking, there is a 50% chance (I know it is not technically true, but you get the idea.) The argument would be marginally strengthened by demonstrating that this difference in hospitalization was statistically significant.
5. It is not clear if the investment in Saluda is wise. Even if this bottled water is beneficial, there may be cheaper alternatives.

3.0. The paper mainly analyzes tangential or irrelevant matters, or reasons poorly.

This looks like poor reasoning. "The argument seems to assume that A or B, and therefore arrives at the conclusion that C. It is entirely possible that C is false."
The analysis first suggests that the original argument had an unwarranted assumption: the tap water might have some bacteria and/or substantial quantities of healthy minerals. Then this line of reasoning is simply dropped.


The quality of Saluda's tap water is of little relevance.


Here the paper is trying to make a point that Saluda's residents may be healthier than the national average for reasons other than that they drink the bottled water. However, this point is never made explicit. Instead, there are only vague statements such as "However there is now proof that this piece of evidence would necessarily lead to the other." or "This type of information should be addressed for the argument to be more convincing."


The population in Saluda is not representative of the national average population. Period.

3.0. Does not convey meaning clearly. (Is limited in the logical development and the organization of ideas).

It is not clear if there have been any relevant studies.


The meaning is unclear.


I can see the intended meaning, but it is not expressed in a coherent way. The "would have been" is particularly confusing.


It is not clear, where exactly is the logical leap.


This whole sentence is confusing. For example, it is unclear how a study can be an improvement of an argument.

3.0. Uses language imprecisely and/or lacks in sentence variety.

3.0. Contains occasional major errors or frequent minor errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics..

buying instead of drinking?


Usage: a flaw stems from a lack of information... In fact, this lack of information is a flaw. The flaw does not stem from this lack of information.


bacteria corroborating the conclusion?


Too repetitive: case, recommendation, favor.


"persuasively featured" does not sound right


Comma splice.



A second comma is missing.

My response to kartikdatwani.
I think it is a weak 4 or a 3.5.

4.0. Identified and analyzes important features of the argument

The paper identified several important features of the argument. First, Saluda Natural Spring water may or may not beneficial for health depending on the concentration of various minerals in it. Also, the absence of bacteria is not necessarily a desirable feature. The paper thoughtfully explores those issues providing some clearly appropriate examples (magnesium ions, curd). Second, residents of Saluda may or may not drink the bottled water in question, and they may also have excellent health for other reasons. Some limited analysis of these observations is present. Third, the comparison with tap water may be unwarranted: tap water may actually be quite healthy. The point about tap water is not analyzed.

The paper can benefit from a more insightful analysis. For example, while it makes a strong point that the residents of Saluda may not even drink Saluda Natural Spring Water and thus demonstrates a significant gap in the argument, this is not where the real issue is. One small town, whether Saluda or any other town, is just not a representative sample. Thus, there is really no way to know if the people living there really benefit from this water and not from something else. Equivalently, there is no way to know if I can expect the same results from drinking this water. Even if it is established to be the case, regularly drinking this water may or may not be a wise investment since tap water is different at every location, Saluda water may have cheaper alternatives, etc.

3.0. Mainly analyzes tangential or irrelevant matters, or reasons poorly

While the paper analyzes several relevant issues, the reasoning is often illogical. The analysis often misinterprets the original argument, attributing to it something that was never stated or even implied.


Well, the author of the analysis is the one who restated the argument in this way, not the author of the original argument.


This is what the argument suggests. However, it is too categorical to label this suggestion as erroneous. In fact, it is not even relevant whether Saluda Natural Spring Water is beneficial for the human health per se, for water is a necessity. We are trying to compare Saluda Natural Spring Water to tap water. Both may be harmful to human health, yet bottled water may be less harmful and thus a wiser investment.


It is not clear what is the relevance of the second sentence. The argument did not discuss any ways of reducing the concentration of minerals in Saluda Natural Spring Water.


This logical transition should be clarified.



I assume that "prerogative" should be read as "prerequisite". However, the argument does not assume that the absence of bacteria is absolutely necessary for good health. It only seems to suggest that the absence of bacteria is helpful, or that tap water tends to have some harmful bacteria.


While I can guess why perishable items were mentioned - they are perishable because of the bacteria in them - the essay does not explain it. Instead it simply introduces "perishable iterms" without any context. Somebody who does not know the connection between bacteria and perishability would be hopelessly confused at this point.


This is a very strong statement to make. What about lactose intolerant people?


No, it does not. The residents may be healthy because they are drinking the water from the spring. The bottling factory may make their health slightly worse by polluting the environment.


No, the argument does not assume that they have unhealthy eating habits and high stress levels. Besides, it is unclear what a "better" lifestyle would be.


No, there is no such assumption. The argument only suggests that Saluda Natural Spring Water is better.


Don't be so certain. The addition of relevant examples and data may help to fortify the argument. Simply adding some examples may actually hurt the argument.

3.0. Is limited in the logical development and organization of ideas

In the second paragraph of the paper it is first claimed that the mix of these minerals in the water is not necessarily beneficial for the human health. Then the conlcusion is reached that

It would be more logical to conclude that paragraph with "Hence, without the data regarding... it cannot be established that the mix of these minerals in this bottled water is beneficial for the human health".

In fact, the paper could be significantly strengthened by recommending the author of the original argument to include information about the concentrations of various minerals in Saluda Natural Spring Water and, of course, to give a scientific explanation for the healthy properties of Saluda Natural Spring Water instead of appealing to some citizens of some little town that have little to do with the bottles in my supermarket.


It is unclear what kind of information is needed in this case. We already know that bacteria can be helpful (curd is an example) and that Saluda Natural Spring Water has no bacteria. The paper should make it more explicit. For example, it would be helpful to know what bacteria are contained in the tap water in various
regions of the country.


Well, what if it did mention that 5,000 residents of Saluda drink the Saluda Natural Spring Water? How would it help?


This is not a very useful assumption. Some of them probably do.

4.0. The paper supports the main points of the critique

Some relevant support is provided. Information about magnesium ions and about curd is relevant and supports the critique. The discussion about the possible reasons for the good health of the residents of Saluda is also relevant and provides some support.

3.0. The paper does not convey meaning clearly.

The argument does not present drinking tap water as an investment, nor does it present Saluda Natural Spring Water as an investment. It presents substituting Saluda Natural Spring Water for tap water as an investment.


Good health of what or of whom? The absence of bacteria in a human or in the water?


"...in which Saluda is" is awkward.


This word order is confusing and stylistically inappropriate in this context.


The meaning is difficult to understand.


There are so many errors in this sentence that the intended meaning cannot be reconstructed.


"Better" suggests a comparison with the national average. However, "healthy" and "low" are not comparative. Should "healthier" and "lower" be used instead?


Are we talking about an assumption or about a conclusion? Also note the awkward "believable and effective".

4.0. Generally follows the conventions of standard written English but may have some flaws

Usage error? Drinking tap water is certainly more viable and feasible, unless one can die from it.


Word order.


Prerequisite?


I guess, this should be considered an error in mechanics. Of course, the cause is different from the type of water.


"Better", "healthy", "low" are not parallel. ("Better" is comparative.)


Word choice: "believable and effective".

A response to SergeyOrshanskiy

Thanks a lot for such an in-depth analysis of my essay. I learnt quite a few important points from your response. I had no idea I was making such mistakes. I am very surprised to see that I made so many mistakes in the "meaning".

Though I have a few queries.
1) Can you please elaborate more on this point. I am still unable to understand the flaw in this.

For example, while it makes a strong point that the residents of Saluda may not even drink Saluda Natural Spring Water and thus demonstrates a significant gap in the argument, this is not where the real issue is. One small town, whether Saluda or any other town, is just not a representative sample. Thus, there is really no way to know if the people living there really benefit from this water and not from something else. Equivalently, there is no way to know if I can expect the same results from drinking this water. Even if it is established to be the case, regularly drinking this water may or may not be a wise investment since tap water is different at every location, Saluda water may have cheaper alternatives, etc

2) Can you please suggest a few techniques for making improvements in my "meaning".

Thank you in advance.

1) Elaborating.

It is a perfectly valid point that the residents of Saluda may not even be drinking the bottled water in question. Thus, we cannot confidently say that the residents of Saluda are relatively healthy because of drinking this water, as they may be relatively healthy for other reasons.

However, even if the residents of Saluda are in great health because of drinking this water, this still does not allow us to conclude that this water is just as useful for everybody else. For example, the residents of Saluda may have a magnesium deficiency because of their traditional diet or because of some local factory poisoning the environment. (I am just making it up - think of a better example if you can.) In this case the residents of Saluda would really benefit from drinking bottled water that is rich in magnesium. However, the rest of the citizens of this country may receive enough magnesium, for whatever reason, and thus hardly benefit from the bottled water at all. Or imagine that for some weird genetic reason this bottled water is benefit to Chinese people but harmful to Japanese people. If all residents of Saluda are Chinese, then they may be in great health because of drinking this water, yet other residents of this country may have a very different experience.

In general, if you have a new medicine that works well for 100 patients, this may or may not constitute enough evidence to recommend this medicine for general use. This is why people do randomized controlled studies. In this case it would be wiser to randomly sample people from different parts of this country, let them drink this water, and then see how often they get hospitalized. Of course, we would need a control group, so only a random subset from this group would be drinking the bottled Saluda water. The other volunteers participating in the study would be drinking bottled tap water to account for the placebo effect.


Let me reiterate just to make sure that you understand. The citizens of Saluda may have a healthier lifestyle, may be young on average and thus healthy, etc. There are many reasons why they may be in great health. But even assuming that they are in great health BECAUSE of the bottled water, we still cannot confidently recommend this water as a wise investment in good health for everybody else.

2) Practice writing some essays without a time limit. You can also rewrite an essay if you think the first attempt was not good enough.

Definitely give yourself enough time to come up with ideas. I personally need at least 3-5 minutes to come up with some nontrivial ideas about an AWA prompt.

One specific technique is assuming that you have handled a particular objection and then checking if there is anything left. For example: it is not known whether the residents of Saluda drink the bottled water. OK, assume that they do. Now what? It is not known if they are younger than the average people in the country. OK. Assume that they average age of Saluda's residents is the same as the national average. Not what? Well, it is not clear that this water is healthy and useful. Assume that it is! It is not clear if the tap water is harmful. Assume that it is full of bacteria and generally not very good for you. Now what? --- and so on...

Hi,
The following is how I have analyzed the argument. Please rate.
Regards,
OMKAR

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

In the given argument the author states that drinking Saluda Natural Spring Water would be better for health instead of regular tap water. The reasoning provided towards the same is that laboratory studies show that Saluda Natural Spring Water is rich in minerals and completely free of bacteria, also the residents of Saluda are rarely hospitalized as compared with the National Average on hospitalization. The remedy is likely to fail due invalid reasoning.

Primarily, as claimed in the argument Saluda Natural Spring Water is better for health than it is to drink the regular tap water. The flaw lies in the lack of evidence on betterment of health by drinking spring water and not tap water as no information is provided that the tap water contains more bacteria and less minerals than the spring water. Laboratory reports on Saluda Natural Spring Water being superior to tap water could have made a valid point and therefore the argument is ambiguous.

Secondly, the national average of people being hospitalized is more than the residents of Saluda getting hospitalized. The author has inappropriately presented the statistics to prove a point as the population of a small town is not exactly stated. There is a possibility that this might be the least populated town in entire country or this very town might be the sports capital of the country and therefore its population is mostly healthy and not because of its natural spring water. A proper population analysis fairly compared to other towns could have strengthened the argument. Therefore making the demography fallacious.

Moreover, it is stated that Saluda Natural Spring Water is expensive but on the other hand tap water is free and given that the disadvantages about tap water are not presented, one would be impelled to lean towards an economical option. Reasoning on why people should pay a premium when they have a better option could have supported the argument. Therefore, this makes the reasoning erroneous.

To conclude, author has claimed Saluda Natural Spring Water to be superior to the regular tap water with improper demographics and inappropriate reasoning makes the argument dubious. Relevant points such as a detail on health benefits and ratio or percentage representation on total population to hospitalized population per year could have made the argument more sensible. The success of this recommendation is doubtful considering the logical flaws and faulty assumptions on which it is based.

Just in case if you are not aware there is an official product available on mba.com:-

GMAT Write® - https://www.mba.com/exam-prep/gmat-write

I hope you find this information useful. Do share your feedback. All the best!!

Prompt:

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.”

ESSAY

The argument claims that Saluda Natural Spring Water (SNSW) contains several minerals necessary for good health, and that it is completely free of bacteria. Also, it reasons that residents of Saluda, the small town where this water is bottled, are hospitalized less frequently than the national average. The author concludes that SNSW - though may seem costlier than tap water - is a wise investment in good health. Stated this way the argument makes assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Consequently, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.

First, the argument claims that since the residents of Saluda are hospitalized less frequently than the national average, drinking this water is a wise investment in good health. Stating this, the argument falsely assumes that it is SNSW which is responsible for the good health of these people. However, there may be many reasons for the same. For example : the residents of Saluda may be less prone to different forms of pollution than the national average or the residents might eat healthier foods. Untill the argument includes information to bolster the above cited accusations the argument is open to interpretation.

Second, the argument reasons that SNSW contains several of the minerals necessary for good health, and that it is completely free of bacteria. On the one hand this may seem a delight to a buyer, on the other hand it may actually be a problem for a health professional. Water constitutes seventy percent of the body weight of an average individual and, hence, is required in a large proportion. If the water consumed is free of bacteria, essentially the good ones, it may prove detrimental to the health of a person. Also the argument does not elaborate whether the minerals have been added or are naturally present. Without convincing answers to this line of reasoning the argument is stands on a weak ground.

In conclusion, to make the argument airtight the author must include relevant answers to the questions : Why are the people of Saluda hospitalized less frequently than the national average? Whether the minerals necessary for good health have been added or are naturally present in this product? Whether the Saluda Natural Spring Water is completely free of good bacteria also? Until the argument provides substantive evidence to counter this line of reasoning, the argument cannot be devoid of criticism.

Good Luck

Can you please help rate my essay. Thanks a lot in advance

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.”

My essay:

The article claims that drinking Saluda Natural Spring Water is a wise investment in good health, even though it is expensive. The article uses the following premises to support its recommendation: i) water from Saluda Natural Spring has several minerals needed for good health and is free of bacteria, ii) lower hospitalization frequency of residents of Saluda (where the water is bottled). Stated in this way, the article clearly rests on uncorrelated assumptions, wrongful expectation of similar effect in broader dissimilar populations, and a narrow view of possible investments in good health. Hence, the article is weak and depends on wishful thinking rather than evidence.

First, the article makes two critical assumptions: i) Residents of Saluda drink Saluda Natural Spring water, ii) Lower hospitalized frequency of Residents in Saluda is the effect of consumption of healthier water (Saluda Natural Spring water). These assumptions are clearly a stretch. Saluda is the town where the water is bottled, this doesn't necessarily imply that Residents of Saluda consume the water. Lower hospitalisation frequency could be a result of many factors such as better immunity, other healthy habits, etc. For example, the residents of Saluda could be consuming tap water or some other bottled water but are more conscious of their diet than the national average and hence less frequently hospitalized vs. the national average. Had the article drawn a direct correlation between water consumed and reasons for less hospitalization in the residents of Saluda backed by data, it could be more convincing.

Second, even if the residents of Saluda do consume the spring water, leading to lower hospitalization frequency, the results might not be the same for people in general. This is a classic error of expecting similar results between different populations. For example - "Certain seafood helps digestion in South-east Asian people. Hence, the same can be expected when American people consume seafood." This clearly is a leap of faith as different people might react differently especially when it comes to food/water preferences. Had the argument taken a broader data set of population, the recommendation could be more convincing.

Third, the article calls out that drinking Saluda Natural Spring water is expensive but still a wise investment. I believe this is a very narrow view of the possible recommendations for investments in good health. For example, there could be multiple other things that are less expensive and yet yield the same or better health effects as drinking Saluda Natural Spring water would. Hence, adopting the other things would be a wiser approach than drinking Saluda natural spring water. Unless the argument benchmarks its current recommendation with other possibilities of investment in good health, we should take the recommendation of drinking Saluda Natural spring water with a pinch of salt.

In conclusion, because of the reasons mentioned above, the recommendation definitely seems to be a stretch vs. being backed by more concrete data. It could be considerably strengthened if the author established correlations between the assumptions, explore other investments in good health and used broader sets of populations to analyse health effects. Without this information, the recommendation remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.

Good Luck

Hi,

Could you please evaluate my essay? Many thanks in advance!

The 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"

My essay:

"The argument claims that drinking Saluda Natural Spring water rather than tap water is a wise investment in good health. However, stated in this way the argument reveals examples of leap of faith, poor reasoning and conveys a distorted view of the situation. Moreover, the author fails to mention several key factors, on the basis its conclusion could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence and therefore, the argument is weak, unconvincing and has several flaws.

Firstly, the argument readily assumes that drinking water of Saluda Natural Spring is the major reason why Saluda town residents have a better health and are less hospitalized that the national average. This statement is stretch as it does not consider other factors that might affect the better health of Saluda town residents. For example, it might be plausible that the residents at Saluda Town follow a healthier diet than the national average person or that the fact that the town is near a natural spring water might result in a healthier lifestyle (more exercise) than the national average person. Clearly, there are several factors that the author did not consider that might help to explain the lower hospitalization rate of residents in Saluda town. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly explained how Saluda Natural Spring water benefits the health of the residents as compared to other factors.

Second, even if it is true that Saluda Natural Spring water is a key factor of the healthiness of the residents of the Saluda Town, the argument does not provide any information nor evidence whether Saluda town residents actually drink this water or the quantity of water that needs to be drunk to perceive these benefits. To illustrate, there might be other water companies that commercialize its products in the Saluda town and maybe most of its residents drink the competitor water rather than SNSW water. If the argument had provided evidence that Saluda town residents only drink water from SNSW then the argument would have been a lot more convincing and the correlation discussed would have been supported.

Finally, the arguments vaguely states that the water of SNSW includes minerals that are necessary for the good health. However, it is clear that the human body needs more than these minerals to have a good health (other minerals and vitamins). Hence, without convincing evidence to further support the claim, the argument presents serious flaws in its conclusion.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above discussed reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts that were missing in the argument and discussed all the relevant factors that might affect one person’s health and how the SNSW water might be beneficial. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate."

Many thanks again!

Good Luck

Please help me in evaluating my passage.

The argument claims that laboratories studies have shown that the water from the Saluda Natural Spring contains several minerals necessary for good health and is completely free of bacteria. Moreover, the argument mentions that residents of Saluda, the small town where the water is bottled are hospitalized less frequently than the national average. Hence, drinking the bottled water from Saluda Natural Spring over tap water is a wise investment in good health even though the bottled spring water may seem expensive. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention relevant facts on basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is rather weak and unconvincing.

Firstly, the argument readily assumes that since the frequency of visits of residents of Saluda to hospital is lesser than the national average, people should consume bottled spring water. This statement is a stretch and is not substantiated in any manner. We are not provided any information as to the kind of diseases that people of Saluda get affected by. It may be a case that residents in rest of the country get affected by far severe infections compared to people of Saluda which mandatorily requires them to visit the hospital. The number of visits may also vary due to the average age of the population in a town as citizens in lower age group have higher immunity against various diseases compared to people in higher age group. For example, the corona virus in general affects the aged people more as compared to people in their 20s and 30s.

Second, the argument mentions that despite being expensive, people should drink spring water as compared to tap water. This again is not substantiated in any manner. The argument does not mention why tap water should be less preferred as compared to bottled spring water. Tap water may contain more added minerals and additionally might be free of other disease causing pathogens like virus as it is widely supplied to each and every household by the government.

In conclusion, the argument is rather weak because of the above mentioned reasons. It could be considerable strengthened if all the relevant facts were provided for the same, in this case the reasons for frequent visits to hospital by other residents, quality of tap water etc. With the given information the argument is unsubstantiated and open to debate. To evaluate the merits of a certain argument, one needs to full knowledge of all the contributing factors.

Good Luck

Dear Sajjad1994 and experts , please evaluate my essay and give your valuable feedback. Thanks in advance.


The article in the health and fitness magazine states an argument which claims that Saluda National Spring Water consists of several minerals necessary for good health and it is completely free of bacteria and hence drinking it would be a wiser option than drinking tapped water to maintain good health. The conclusion of the argument is based on the premise that the residents of Saluda, where the water is bottled, are hospitalized less frequently than the national average therefore it would be an idle substitute for tap water. The conclusion of the argument is based on the assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that the water bottled in Saluda consists of the same minerals that a normal resident of Saluda consumes. However, the packaged water may be processed and the Saluda water which the people consume might be processed to an extent where not all the minerals are retained. It is not at all clear whether all the necessary minerals which paves way for a better health condition of the resident of Saluda are retained in the packaged water bottles made in Saluda. The author fails to mention the data and comparison between the quality and minerals present in the normal drinking water in Saluda.

Second, the argument would have been much clearer if it had provided proper validation of data from the laboratory studies. The argument straightaway mentions that the Saluda Natural Spring Water consists of several minerals that are good for health and it is free from bacteria. However, the argument would have been much clearer if it had provided substantiated data comparing the quality and minerals present in the spring water of other towns and states and also that to the normal tap water before concluding that it is the best alternative for maintaining good health.

Finally, the author fails to mention the key factor based on which the argument could have been evaluated. The argument fails to substantiate relevant data to conclude that the residents of Saluda are hospitalized less frequently than the national average. The reason for the following outcome could be several factors such as healthy diet and eating habits, pollution-free environment, genetics, lifestyle, etc. The author of the article generalizes this statement without validating and providing relevant data specific to better health conditions due to the consumption of spring water rich in minerals. The argument fails to mention if the bottled water and spring water consumed by the residents of the Saluda consist of the same minerals and also it is not at all clear if the bottled water from Saluda consists of the same minerals when the normal tap water is purified or boiled. Without the answers to the above questions, one is left with an impression that the argument is more of wishful thinking than substantiated information.

In conclusion, the argument has several flaws and is unconvincing. The argument could be considerably strengthened if the following information such as data substantiating the minerals present in the bottled water and spring water are the same and that isn't lost due to processing, the real reason behind better health condition of the residents of Saluda and if it is only specific to water and the minerals and bacteria present in tap water, when purified or boiled vs the packaged bottled water from Saluda. To access the merits of a situation or an argument, it is essential to all the knowledge to conclude the argument. Without the above information, the argument is unconvincing, unsubstantiated, and open to debate.

Good Luck