Laboratory studies show that Saluda Natural Spring Water contains

Question

hi, could someone review my AWA?

"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 in the article claims that drinking bottled water instead of tap water is a healthier choice. The argument is inconclusive without data supporting its hypothesis, tends to manipulate facts to present a distorted view of the reality. In sum, the argument could be improved if it supported with relevant data on which its core assumptions depend on.

First, the argument readily assumes that bottled water is healthier than tap water because Salunda Natural Spring contains necessary minerals and it is free of bacteria. This statement can be incorrect because there could be several other reasons for water contamination. For example, it could be possible that the bottles are contaminated. Clearly, solely relying on the one aspect is not a good indicator of how things will turn out in the future. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated the hygienic standards followed at the factory where the water is bottled.

Second, the argument claims that people of Saluda are hospitalized less frequently than the national average. This is a again a very weak and unsupported claim as the argument does not really take into account the data supporting the number of people hospitalized and any information whether people hospitalized used bottled water or tap water. If the argument provided evidence in support, it would have been more clearer to convince.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasoning and is therefore not convincing. It would be considerably stronger if the author clearly mentioned hygienic standards followed by the factory and provided data regarding people hospitalized. In order to assess the argument, it is necessary to have full knowledge of all the factors. Without these information, the argument remains indefensible and open to debate.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

AWA Score: 6 out of 6!

I have used a GMATAWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.

Coherence and connectivity: 4.5/5 
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.

Paragraph structure and formation: 5/5  
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.

Vocabulary and word expression: 5/5 
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!

Good Luck

Katnip2112 · Answer

Please rate my answer! Thank you in advance!

The given argument gievn in an article in a health and fitness magazine claims that since the Saluda Natural Spring Water contains several minerals necessary for good health and is completely free of bacteria, the residents of Saluda should consume this water instead of tap water. Stated in this way the argument is inconclusive without data supporting its hypothesis. It tends to manipulate facts to present a distorted view of reality and is a leap of faith, reasoning without clear outcomes. Thus the argument could be improved it supported data on which its core assumptions depend upon.

First, the argument assumes that since the residents of Saluda are hospitalized less frequently they must be drinking the bottled water since it is manufactered in their town. This statement is incorrect because the claim fails to justify why the residents would be drinking bottled water instead of tap water in Saluda and if they are, what population of residents is consuming the bottled water. For example Haldiram manufactures its namkeens in Nagpur but it is not necessary that just becuase its manufacturing unit is located in Nagpur, all the residents of Nagpur eat only Namkeens that are manufactured by Haldiram. Thus the argument is inconclusive unless it explicitly states the percentage of people in Saluda drinking bottled water and their reason for doing so,while making its claim.

Second, the argument claims that even though the bottled water is expensive, drinking it is a better health investment than tap water.This is again weak and unsupported since the argument does not provide information about the quality of tap water in other places, the per capita income of the place where the bottled water is being advertised and the number of people falling sick because of drinking tap water. So unless the argument provides a clear picture of the percentage of people that suffer because of drinking tap water and the percentage of people who can afford the bottled water it is unwise to deem that drinking tap water is not a good health investment unlike bottled water.Thus the argument would have been more convincing if it provided some evidence regarding these issues.

Finally the argument does not answer such questions as: What is the percentage of population in Saluda who drink bottled water? What is the percentage of population in other cities that falls sick due to drinking tap water? What is the difference in population between city of advertisement and Saluda? What is the per capita income of city of advertisement?Without a convincing answer to these questions, one is left with the impression that the argument is more of a wishful thinking than a substantiative evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above reasoning and is therefore inconclusive. It could be considerably strengthened if it provided more information about the percentage of people in Saluda drinking bottled water and the reason for them doing so.In order to assess the merit of a situation it is very important to have the full knowledge of the contributing factors. In this particular case,the population of other places, quality of tap water in those places, number of people falling sick due to drinking tap water and per capita income of places where bottle is being advertised. Without this information the argument is unsubstantiated and open to debate.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

AWA Score: 6 out of 6!

I have used a GMATAWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.

Coherence and connectivity: 5/5 
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.

Paragraph structure and formation: 4.5/5  
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.

Vocabulary and word expression: 4/5 
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!

Good Luck

VMBA2023 · Answer

Hello

Could you please provide me with a review of my AWA ?
This is on the same argument of this thread

"The main point of this argument is that Saluda Natural Spring Water is a good investment to stay healthy. This argument demonstrates several flaws and relies on unverified assumptions.

First the argument uses the fact that residents of Saluda are going less frequently to the hospital than the average citizen as a proof of the health properties of the water of Saluda. However, no numbers on the percentage of consumption of this water by Saluda inhabitants is provided. It could be argued that these people drink much more tap water than water of Saluda. The argument would have been much stronger if it had provided details on water sources consumed by the people of Saluda and the corresponding national average description.

Secondly, to accurately imply that the difference of hopitalization rate between inhabitants of Saluda and national average is only due to water consumption, comparability of other key factors of hospitalization between residents of Saluda and national average should have been performed. Indeed, for example, hospitalization rate may be lower due to unability of the resident to pay for hospitalization bills. If it was demonstrated that inhabitants of Saluda have lower health insurance coverage than national average, the entire argument would be refuted. Therefore, the argument should have provided a details comparison of hospitalization risk factors between residents of Saluda and national average.

Additionaly, the arguments concludes that Saluda Natural Spring Water is a good investment because it provides good health thanks to the several minerals it contains. However, these minerals may be contained in other beverages or foods that may be less expensive. The argument could be strengthen by stating that these specific minerals are not available in cheaper drinks or foods, or are present at a much lower rate. A comparative analysis of prices by concentration for various sources of these specific mineral would have provided a more solid ground to the conclusion of the argument.

To conclude, this argument relies on unverified hypotheses and could have been easily strengthen by providing additional comparative information between people of Saluda and national average on various indicators including risk factors of hospitalization, kind of hospitalizations, consumption of tap water and Saluda Natural Spring Water... Stated this way, the argument does not provide enough information to conclude that the water of Saluda is a good investment in good health."

Many thanks in advance !

Sajjad1994 · Answer

AWA Score: 5 out of 6!

I have used a GMAT AWA auto-grader to evaluate your essay.

Coherence and connectivity: 5/5  
This rating corresponds to the flow of ideas and expressions from one paragraph to another. The effective use of connectives and coherence of assertive language in arguing for/against the argument is analyzed. This is deemed as one of the most important parameters.

Paragraph structure and formation: 4.5/5  
The structure and division of the attempt into appropriate paragraphs are evaluated. To score well on this parameter, it is important to organize the attempt into paragraphs. Preferable to follow the convention of leaving a line blank at the end of each paragraph, to make the software aware of the structure of the essay.

Vocabulary and word expression: 3.5/5  
This parameter rates the submitted essay on the range of relevant vocabulary possessed by the candidate basis the word and expression usage. There are no extra- points for bombastic word usage. Simple is the best form of suave!

Good Luck

SohiniSengupta · Answer

Sajjad1994 , Please review my essay. Thanks in advance.

The argument claims that drinking expensive bottled Saluda Natural Spring water is a healthier option than having normal tap water. The argument is based on only 2 premises – the spring water contains multiple minerals and free of bacteria, and residents of Saluda are less frequently hospitalized. The argument is inconclusive for couple of reasons.
First, the argument claims that the natural spring water is healthier but it fails to consider other ways of contamination. For example, there is no supporting data regarding the hygiene of the bottling industry mentioned. It can be possible that the water gets contaminated during the bottling process. To make the claim stronger the argument needs to provide data regarding the hygiene standards of the bottling process in Saluda.
Second, the argument assumes less frequent hospitalization in a small-town Saluda as a benchmark for the residents being healthy. This assumption is flawed. As mentioned, Saluda, being a small town, may not have enough hospitals to accommodate all the sick people. Accordingly, the residents of the town may not get admitted to the hospital unless they are extremely sick. Hence, comparing the hospitalization rate with the national average is inconsistent and can’t be considered as a benchmark. Further data of clinic visits in the town and hospitalization of the residents in a hospital of a neighboring town will help to make the argument more convincing.
In conclusion, the argument itself is incomplete due to above mentioned flaws. The author needs to provide further data regarding the safety and hygiene standards of the bottling industry and proper survey of the residents regarding hospitalization to have clear picture. Without these data, the argument stands debatable and unconvincing.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

AWA Score: 4 out of 6

Coherence and connectivity: 5
The essay demonstrates a good level of coherence and connectivity. The ideas are logically organized and connected through the use of transitional phrases such as "First," and "Second," which help guide the reader through the argument. The essay effectively presents the premises, raises the flaws in the argument, and concludes with a clear statement. However, there are a few instances where the connection between sentences could be stronger, leading to a slight deduction in score.

Word structure: 5
The essay demonstrates a strong command of word structure. Sentences are grammatically correct and well-structured, utilizing a variety of sentence structures to convey ideas effectively. The vocabulary used is appropriate and contributes to the clarity of the essay.

Paragraph structure and formation: 3
The essay consists of three paragraphs, each addressing a specific point. The introduction clearly states the main argument and the subsequent paragraphs develop the flaws in the reasoning. However, the conclusion is relatively brief and could be further expanded to summarize the main points and provide a stronger closing statement.

Language and grammar: 5
The essay generally demonstrates good language and grammar usage. The sentences are clear and concise, effectively conveying the intended meaning. There are minor grammatical errors and awkward phrasing in a few places, leading to a slight deduction in score. For example, the phrase "the water gets contaminated during the bottling process" could be revised to "the water may become contaminated during the bottling process" for improved clarity.

Vocabulary and word expression: 5.5
The vocabulary used in the essay is appropriate and effectively communicates the ideas. There is a good range of vocabulary, but some repetition of words and phrases could be avoided. Additionally, there are a few instances where alternative word choices or more precise vocabulary could enhance the expression of ideas. Overall, the vocabulary and word expression are above average but could benefit from some refinement.

Overall, the essay demonstrates a solid understanding of the argument's weaknesses and effectively analyzes the line of reasoning. With some minor improvements in coherence and vocabulary usage, the essay would further strengthen its analysis. Considering these factors, the essay would receive a score of 4 out of 6.

Life is too short to make proper paragraphs:

Laboratory studies show that Saluda Natural Spring Water contains

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards