GMAT Essays (AWA)

The following appeared in an article in a health and fitness magazine:
"Scientific research has shown that Clear-One Bottled Water has many minerals needed for good health and that it is totally free of bacteria. Residents of the town where the water is bottled get sick less frequently than the national average. Even though Clear-One is higher-priced than the other bottled waters, it is a good long-term investment in your health."
Directions: Discuss how well-reasoned you find this argument. Be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in this argument. You may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also include what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sounds, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The argument claims that Clear -One bottled water has many minerals needed for good health and that it is totally free of bacteria. Residents of the town where the water is bottled get sick less frequently than the national average, so even though Clear-One is higher-priced than the other bottled waters, it is a good long-term investment for our health. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors, on the basis of which it can be evaluated. The argument reveals examples of leap of faith and poor reasoning. The conclusion of the argument relies on the assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that residents of a town get less sick frequently than the national average because they use bottled water. This statement is a stretch because it ignores all the other possible factors which can help the residents to live a healthy life and get less sick. They probably exercise on a regular basis, eat healthy food and get adequate sleep which keeps them healthy. For example, residents of Charlotte Mecklenburg county doesn't use bottled water but they get sick less frequently because most of the residents follows proper diet and also exercises regularly in community gymnasium or YMCA. Clearly the argument didn't consider any other possible factors which may impact the health of the residents. The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that all the other possible factors are accounted for and bottled water is the only reason affecting the health of residents.

Second, the argument assumes that other bottle waters doesn't not have as many minerals as Clear-One bottled water has as well as other bottled waters does have bacteria. This is again a very weak assumption which has no clear evidence. The other bottled waters might have same minerals like Clear-One bottled water and they can be also bacteria free as well as their cost might be cheaper than Clear-One bottled water. If the price is of other bottled water is less and the product offering is same then Clear one bottled waters is not a good investment because the same output will be provided by other bottled waters in less money. If the argument had provided evidence of other bottled waters containing bacteria and less minerals than Clear One, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.

Finally, the argument concludes that even though Clear-One is higher-priced than the other bottled waters, it is a good long-term investment in our health. From this statement again it is not at all clear how Clear One adds value to our health. If minerals are the only need for our body to be healthy there are other available products which provides as many minerals as Clear one and is comparatively cheaper than Clear one. Also there are products which have bacteria, which is pro-biotic and is good for our health. Many minerals and no bacteria are not the only factors for keeping us healthy. Without supporting evidences and examples, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than a substantive evidence.

In summary, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the other relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.