Laboratory studies show that Saluda Natural Spring Water contains seve

Hello, everyone,

I'm currently finalizing my GMAT preparation and wondering what score can one get with an essay like this.
Thank you in advance! Any critics appreciated

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.”

The argument claims that drinking Saluda Natural Spring Water (SNSW) instead of tap water, even though the former may seem expensive, is a wise investment in good health. Three reasons offered in support of this conclusion: 1) SNSW contains several of the minerals necessary for good health; 2) it is completely free of bacteria; 3) residents of Saluda – the town where the water is bottled – are hospitalized less frequently than the national average. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several important factors based on which it could be evaluated, manipulates facts, and conveys a distorted view of the situation. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no justification. Hence, the argument is unfounded and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that residents of Saluda, where the water is bottled, are hospitalized less frequently than the national average because they drink Saluda Natural Spring Water. This statement is stretch because it fails to address the claim that the relatively low hospitalization rate of Saluda residents may be caused by other factors, such as the positive ecologic situation in the town, healthy diet of Saluda residents, or the average age lower than the national average. If the argument had stated evidence that those Saluda residents who drink Saluda Natural Spring Water are hospitalized less frequently than those town residents who do not drink it, then the argument would have been much more persuasive.

Second, the argument states that even the price of Saluda Natural Spring Water may seem high, drinking this water is a wise investment in good health. This is again a weak and unsupported claim as the argument fails to consider other available options. For example, it may be true that drinking tap water that was cleaned using special technics has the same impact on health as drinking Saluda Natural Spring Water and lower cost. The argument could have been much more credible if it explicitly stated that other drinking options in Saluda are less effective in maintaining good health that Saluda Natural Spring Water is.

Finally, the argument leaves one with open questions without convincing answers to which the claim seems more of wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence. Is Saluda the source of the SNSW or merely the place where SNSW is bottled? Is the absence of bacteria in Saluda Natural Spring Water beneficial for health? How significant is the difference between the hospitalization rate of Saluda residents and the national average rate?

In conclusion, the argument is not well reasoned for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. If the author had considered alternative explanations of relatively the low hospitalization rate of Saluda residents, examined the impact on health of other drinking options in Saluda, the argument could be considerably strengthened.