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 . . . etc.
The argument claims that Saluda Natural Spring Water is an essential investment in good health because, according laboratory studies, it contains necessary for health minerals had no bacteria and residents of the small town Saluda, where the water is sold, are not so frequently hospitalized as the national average. This conclusion, based solely on two pieces of evidence, is doubtful as it does not provide any clear information. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First of all, the argument readily assumes that there were only laboratory studies, but there is no information about the research of this water in real conditions. As most people know, it is often differences between tests in laboratories and outside them due to the fact that it is impossible to consider all factors. In addition, the argument mentions containing several of the minerals necessary for good health, but it is also not stated what are they. What minerals are essential for good health? There is no objective criteria.
Secondly, the argument makes an assumption that resident of small time have a good health due to the fact that in their habitat Saluda Natural Spring Water is bottled. The author fails to mention that there a lot of other factors which can influence people's health such as a lifestyle and food preferences. Also the less frequenters of hospitalization may be connected with the average age of residents in Saluda.
Thirdly, the argument could have been much clearer if it provided the information on any national research which could be found in trust scientist's magazines as all real and essential studies scientist like to publish in such magazines.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. To strengthen the argument the author would have to provide more evidence. Supporting examples would further substantiate the author's view. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 09 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 319 350
No. of Characters: 1653 1500
No. of Different Words: 170 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.226 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.182 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.881 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 124 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 103 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 75 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 44 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.938 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.776 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.562 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.325 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.566 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.078 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 308, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Also,
...ch as a lifestyle and food preferences. Also the less frequenters of hospitalization...
^^^^
Line 5, column 317, Rule ID: FEWER_LESS[2]
Message: Did you mean 'fewer'? The noun frequenters is countable.
Suggestion: fewer
...ifestyle and food preferences. Also the less frequenters of hospitalization may be c...
^^^^
Line 7, column 51, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...he argument could have been much clearer if it provided the information on any na...
^^
Line 7, column 186, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'studies'' or 'study's'?
Suggestion: studies'; study's
...sts magazines as all real and essential studies scientist like to publish in such magaz...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, hence, if, may, second, secondly, so, then, therefore, third, thirdly, in addition, in conclusion, such as, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.6327345309 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 6.0 12.9520958084 46% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 35.0 55.5748502994 63% => OK
Nominalization: 21.0 16.3942115768 128% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1698.0 2260.96107784 75% => OK
No of words: 319.0 441.139720559 72% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.32288401254 5.12650576532 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.22617688928 4.56307096286 93% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.95699199405 2.78398813304 106% => OK
Unique words: 174.0 204.123752495 85% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.545454545455 0.468620217663 116% => OK
syllable_count: 528.3 705.55239521 75% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.76447105788 103% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 2.70958083832 37% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 71.8573891468 57.8364921388 124% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.125 119.503703932 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.9375 23.324526521 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.625 5.70786347227 151% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 5.25449101796 76% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.286323357307 0.218282227539 131% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0876296576979 0.0743258471296 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.117946741081 0.0701772020484 168% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.154100563949 0.128457276422 120% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.120347325905 0.0628817314937 191% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.6 14.3799401198 95% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.3550499002 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.5979740519 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.89 8.32208582834 107% => OK
difficult_words: 87.0 98.500998004 88% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 12.3882235529 117% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.