Please evaluate the essay.
Thanks in advance
Q: 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.”
Essay Format
The argument debates that Saluda spring water is abundant of minerals and studies have shown that consumption of the same is good for health. It has also been commented by the author that the consumption leads to less hospital admissions as compared to national average. So even though water being expensive, it must be consumed for benefits as mentioned. This is again a mere general statement cited by the author is unsupportive of the hypothesis, failed to connect the dots and is clearly a leap of faith with no clear outcomes. Unless stated clearly with relevant facts and figure, the statement would be more of a wishful thought.
First, the author states that Saluda natural spring water town contains several minerals necessary for health and that too free of bacteria, but has failed to corroborate with relevant data or laboratory results. Also, if the water is free of all bacteria then, it again may be of no good use as many bacteria are said to increase the immune system of body which helps fight disease and are necessary for proper functioning of body. Human body is composed of 70 percent water and loss of bacteria can be a turn around factor.
Second, the author has strengthened his position by stating that residents of Saluda where the water bottling is done, are hospitalised less as compared to national average. But he has failed to note the point that since Saluda is a small town, healthcare facilities are less available and so people may report less. So many unreported cases may be detrimental depending on the criticality, genuity and the diagnosis absentia. Unless stated with investigation agency results, any conclusion on the facts would be novice approach.
Third, the author has failed to understand that in today’s scenario water purity cannot be compared as it existed earlier because water levels have gone down, effluents from factories being released in process of cleaning water are permeated to ground water level along with the waste water which can be harmful for the local population as well as the flora and fauna of the regions. Also water bottling units remove excess salts in the water which can be disastrous from environmental concern.
In conclusion, the argument remains flawed for the reasons cited above. The author should present facts corroborated with relevant facts and developments if any. From the facts presented by author, he should have tried to have a holistic survey with a large number of respondents. In order to access the merit of the certain situation the author should have full access of the knowledge and measures to increase the same. Without this information the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.