First ever AWA - Kaplan Topic : Kindly Evaluate Out of 6!

[ask1]

TIME: 30 minutes
COMPLETED IN: 28 minutes
SHORTCOMING: Could'nt view the timer so I could not review the piece and risk not clicking submit!





QUESTION STEM:

"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.



MY RESPONSE:

The article cites a research which outlines a couple of attractive features of "Clear-One" Bottled Water. It further goes on to bring to light that the town in which the factory faces less cases of residents falling ill as compared to the national average. It concludes by stating that despite the relatively higher price, Clear-One is a good long term investment for one's health. The article is however illogical and flawed on many counts.

Firstly, article begs the credibility of the 'research source' that it has cited as no mention of the same is made. It has also not gone into the depth of exact details of the type and composition minerals for the supposedly 'good health' stated. In addition to that, the article's claim that Clear One is 'totally' devoid of bacteria is quite ludicrous, especially when there are no backing scientific data from the manufacturer provided. Such remarks do not provide convincing details in favor of Clear One.

This is further evident wherein there is a blatant correlation made between the location of the factory and the health conditions of the town residents. The article does not lucidly state whether the national average is high or low prima facie. This could well be the case where the national average could be very high and the town falls just below it, weakening its own argument on the bottle and its content. On the other hand, the low town illness rates could well be due to a host of factors such as preventive health measures taken collectively, state of the art waste treatment and sewage facilities and so on. This may well be the reason why the factory would've been established there in the first place and not the other way around. Lastly, the justification for the high price by citing long term investment is also untenable as there is no conclusive fact or data that somehow connects the investment of a Clear-One consumer to his/her health benefits over a duration.

The arguments presented by the article would have been more convincing had there been solid evidences presented on the nutritional and calorific values of the bottled water. A mention of the safety standards and procedures followed during its manufacture would've greatly strengthened it's push for the health angle. A direct line of reasoning bringing out tangible benefits would have also helped the case for Clear-One. Without these salient points, the argument presented is not only weak, but inconclusive and does not make a compelling case for Clear-One.