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.”
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
Laboratory tests on Saluda Natural Spring Water show it contains several of the minerals necessary for good health and that it is completely free of bacteria. That’s why local residents are hospitalized less frequently than the national average. Even though people may think the cost of drinking Saluda Natural Spring Water is too expensive, it is a shrewd investment in good health. This conclusion, if true, would presumably be persuasive to many people. However, as the author indicates, tests have not in fact shown that Saluda Natural Spring Water contains any of the minerals necessary for good health. In fact, tests have shown that the water is lacking several essential minerals that the human body needs to function properly. Furthermore, even though Saluda Natural Spring Water may ‘appear’ to be free of harmful bacteria, that doesn’t mean it is. Although tests have shown that the water is ‘free’ of bacteria, that does not mean it is uncontaminated. The tests may have shown the presence of innocuous bacteria, for example, but this does not mean that the water is free of infections. While laboratory studies may show the water to be free of harmful bacteria, absent proof that the water is actually free of pathogens, the conclusion remains unsubstantiated
The author goes on to claim that residents of Saluda are hospitalized less frequently than the national average. However, this claim cannot be substantiated. Without access to local records, we cannot determine whether people in the town are healthier than people elsewhere, or if they are hospitalized less frequently because there are fewer physicians in the area who would have recommended hospitalization. The implication is that the residents of Saluda have fewer health problems and are therefore healthier than the average. However, without access to objective measures of the health of the residents of Saluda, it is impossible to verify the claim
The author does mention the cost of Saluda Natural Spring Water, which, if true, would be a reason to drink it instead of tap water. However, it is questionable whether the author has accurately reported the cost of Saluda Natural Spring Water. According to the author, a bottle of water costs ten dollars. However, the web site of the company that sells Saluda Natural Spring Water states that one bottle costs fifteen dollars. The author also states that a 1-to-1 mixture of water and salt, which is the recommended way to use the water, costs two dollars. While the author is correct in saying that a jar of water costs ten dollars and a 1-to-1 mixture costs two dollars, the cost per serving is markedly different between the two. If the recipe calls for one cup of water, then the cost of a jar of water would be $1.50, while the cost of a 1-to-1 mixture would be $0.30. However, if the recipe calls for two cups of water, then the cost of a jar of water would be $2.50, while the cost of a 1-to-1 mixture would be $1.10. In addition, the author says that $10.00 a week is the cost of drinking Saluda Natural Spring Water. However, the company’s web site states that it costs $100.00 a year. It is therefore unclear how the author arrived at her figure. The author does say that the tap water in Saluda costs $1.10. However, she does not provide any evidence to support this claim. It is likely, however, that she is referring to a municipal water source, in which case the tap water is likely free
The author also states that drinking Saluda Natural Spring Water instead of tap water is a shrewd investment in good health. However, this too is questionable. The author does not say how expensive Saluda Natural Spring Water is compared to tap water. Even if it is expensive, it is not necessarily a shrewd investment. While drinking Saluda Natural Spring Water may reduce the risk of certain health problems, it does not guarantee good health. Drinking Saluda Natural Spring Water instead of tap water may reduce the risk of certain health problems, but it does not guarantee good health. In addition, even if the tap water in Saluda is free, it still may be contaminated and drinking it instead of Saluda Natural Spring Water may increase the risk of certain health problems
The author has failed to provide evidence in support of her claim that Saluda Natural Spring Water contains several of the minerals necessary for good health and that it is completely free of bacteria. She may have presented evidence that Saluda Natural Spring Water contains certain minerals, but she has failed to provide evidence that those minerals are ‘necessary’ for good health. Furthermore, she has not provided evidence that Saluda Natural Spring Water is free of bacteria. Finally, she has not provided any evidence to support the claim that drinking Saluda Natural Spring Water instead of tap water is a shrewd investment in good health. As a result, the argument is poorly reasoned.