"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."
In the above argument the author claims that the residents of Saluda should drink Saluda Natural Spring Water instead of tap water because Saluda Natural Spring Water contains several minerals and is bacteria free. The claim may well have merit but the author presents a poorly reasoned argument based on questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence that author offers we cannot accept his argument as valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in the author's unsubstantiated premises. First the author fails to mention that how many laboratories tested the Saluda Natural Spring Water. What if the laboratory that tested the water sample was asked to give the results in favor of Saluda Natural Spring Water. There is be a possibility that the someone from the packaging department of the Spring Water paid the laboratory. Clearly, we cannot accept this claim unless the author gives more information on the credibility of laboratory.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. First, the author assumes that the sole reason for the people of Saluda to be less hospitalized is the Saluda Natural Spring Water. But, the author does not give any information about the percentage of the population that consumes it. There can be some other reasons for the same . For example, the population may be educated and health conscious. The other reason could be better health-care facilities. Second, the author assumes that the tap water in Saluda does not contain minerals and is not bacteria-free . The author does not give any information about the source of tap water. What if the source of tap water is the spring water itself.Then, there is no point for people to waste their money on expensive water. The author weakens his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide its explication.
In conclusion, the author's reasoning is flawed and thus unconvincing. But the author can strengthen his argument by giving more information about the credibility of the laboratory that tested the sample, the percentage of the people that consume the natural and spring water and the compostion of natural water avaiable. If the author truely hopes to change the reader's mind , he would have to restructure his argument , fix the flaw in his logic , clearly explicate his argument. Without these things , his poorly reasoned argument will likely to convince few people.
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."
In the above argument the author claims that the residents of Saluda should drink Saluda Natural Spring Water instead of tap water because Saluda Natural Spring Water contains several minerals and is bacteria free. The claim may well have merit but the author presents a poorly reasoned argument based on questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence that author offers we cannot accept his argument as valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in the author's unsubstantiated premises. First the author fails to mention that how many laboratories tested the Saluda Natural Spring Water. What if the laboratory that tested the water sample was asked to give the results in favor of Saluda Natural Spring Water. There is be a possibility that the someone from the packaging department of the Spring Water paid the laboratory. Clearly, we cannot accept this claim unless the author gives more information on the credibility of laboratory.
In addition, the author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. First, the author assumes that the sole reason for the people of Saluda to be less hospitalized is the Saluda Natural Spring Water. But, the author does not give any information about the percentage of the population that consumes it. There can be some other reasons for the same . For example, the population may be educated and health conscious. The other reason could be better health-care facilities. Second, the author assumes that the tap water in Saluda does not contain minerals and is not bacteria-free . The author does not give any information about the source of tap water. What if the source of tap water is the spring water itself.Then, there is no point for people to waste their money on expensive water. The author weakens his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide its explication.
In conclusion, the author's reasoning is flawed and thus unconvincing. But the author can strengthen his argument by giving more information about the credibility of the laboratory that tested the sample, the percentage of the people that consume the natural and spring water and the compostion of natural water avaiable. If the author truely hopes to change the reader's mind , he would have to restructure his argument , fix the flaw in his logic , clearly explicate his argument. Without these things , his poorly reasoned argument will likely to convince few people.
