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 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 be seen expensive, drinking it instead of tap water is a wise investment in good health.
In the above argument, the author tries to persuade that drinking Saluda Natural Spring Water (SNSW) is preferable for three reasons as it is bacteria free, contains several essential minerals and lastly residents consuming it are less frequently hospitalized. However, I believe that this argument is unconvincing because it relies on a variety of dubious assumptions.Firstly, it is mentioned that Saluda is a small town, so we can assume that the income would be little lesser than well-emerged towns. Thus, the residents might not be willing to pay more for bottled waters. There is a possibility that other mineral bottle companies might offer water at a cheaper rate with good quality. Water is one of the most indispensible sources in life but there is no mention about other competing brands selling water. I believe that there are many household methods to purify water and normal people will opt sticking to household methods than buying SNSW. Secondly, it is said that residents of Saluda are less hospitalized than the national average, but there might be a probability that the residents are more inclined to fitness or are more diet cautious than residents of other towns. Consumption of SNSW might not be a reason for good health but nutritional food items can essentially be the reason. Thirdly, the author is biased when he suggests that SNSW is a wise investment in good health, but even the tap water can be freed from bacteria by boiling it above 100 degree Celsius & then cooling the steam of the water, so there is no need to pay high amount of money to get bacteria free water.
Further, I think the author should have provided some evidence to demean the usage of tap water, which would help the readers, differentiate between tap water and SNSW. Overall, the argument is weak as crucial data about other competing brands, dietary patterns is missing. In conclusion, this is an unconvincing argument. Moreover, the author should provide evidence that tracks that usage of SNSW is the reason for better health.
Laboratory studies show that Saluda Natural Spring Water contains several of the minerals necessary for good health and 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 be seen expensive, drinking it instead of tap water is a wise investment in good health.
In the above argument, the author tries to persuade that drinking Saluda Natural Spring Water (SNSW) is preferable for three reasons as it is bacteria free, contains several essential minerals and lastly residents consuming it are less frequently hospitalized. However, I believe that this argument is unconvincing because it relies on a variety of dubious assumptions.Firstly, it is mentioned that Saluda is a small town, so we can assume that the income would be little lesser than well-emerged towns. Thus, the residents might not be willing to pay more for bottled waters. There is a possibility that other mineral bottle companies might offer water at a cheaper rate with good quality. Water is one of the most indispensible sources in life but there is no mention about other competing brands selling water. I believe that there are many household methods to purify water and normal people will opt sticking to household methods than buying SNSW. Secondly, it is said that residents of Saluda are less hospitalized than the national average, but there might be a probability that the residents are more inclined to fitness or are more diet cautious than residents of other towns. Consumption of SNSW might not be a reason for good health but nutritional food items can essentially be the reason. Thirdly, the author is biased when he suggests that SNSW is a wise investment in good health, but even the tap water can be freed from bacteria by boiling it above 100 degree Celsius & then cooling the steam of the water, so there is no need to pay high amount of money to get bacteria free water.
Further, I think the author should have provided some evidence to demean the usage of tap water, which would help the readers, differentiate between tap water and SNSW. Overall, the argument is weak as crucial data about other competing brands, dietary patterns is missing. In conclusion, this is an unconvincing argument. Moreover, the author should provide evidence that tracks that usage of SNSW is the reason for better health.
