GagooshQuote:
“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 argument claims that although Saluda Natural Spring Water may seem expensive, drinking it instead of tap water is a wise investment in good health. In support, the argument uses findings of laboratory studies showing that Saluda Natural Spring Water contains several of the minerals necessary for good health and that it is completely free of bacteria. In further support, the argument claims that residents of Saluda, the small town where the water is bottled, are hospitalized less frequently than the national average. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The argument relies on assumptions, for which there is no clear evidence. Therefore, the argument is rather weak, unconvincing, and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that because laboratory studies show that Saluda Natural Spring water conatins several of mineral necessary for good health and that it is completely free of bacteria, it is better than tap water. This statement is a stretch and not substantiated in any way. There are numerous examples of places where tap water is as good as or even better than the bottled water from various brands. For instance, Toronto city is supplied with municipal water from nearby fresh water lakes. Tap water in Toronto city has been certified by various laboratories that it contains several minerals essential for human body and that it is completely free of bacteria. The argument would have been much clearer if it had presented comparison of results of studies done on tap water from various areas and Saluda Natural Spring water.
Second, the argument claims that residents of Saluda, the small town where the water is bottled, are hospitalized less frequently than the national average. It thus suggests that residents of Saluda are hospitalized less frequently because they drink Saluda Natural Spring water. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not demonstrate any causation relationship between the health of residents of Saluda and drinking Saluda Natural Spring water. For example, the residents of Saluda are hospitalized less frequently may be because they are physically active, or eat healthy diet or may be because the air quality of Saluda is very good. If the argument had provided evidence that drinking Saluda Natural Spring water is the primary reason behind good health of residents of Saluda, then the argument would have sounded a bit more convincing.
Finally, the argument does not provide any data comparing bottled water of different companies/sources with Saluda Natural Spring water on the basis of price and quality. In absence of this vital information, it is not clear whether the bottled water from other companies or sources is better or not in comparison with Saluda Natural Spring water. Without supporting evidence, one is left with the impression that the argument assumes that this part is not important. As a result, the argument feels incomplete.
In summary, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.
Thank you in advance!