Water for Health?

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 article tries to convince the reader that paying a higher price for Saluda Natural Spring Water is a wise decision as it is good for health. The reasoning presented, however, is not convincing.

The article presumes that mineral water bottled at any other place does not have similar minerals. If it is mentioned clearly that it is indeed the case, then the company has case for demanding a higher price; else the argument gets seriously weakened.

The article also implies that only drinking mineral water is responsible for the good health of Saluda residents.  Since the article clearly states that Saluda is a small town, a clean environment and a healthy lifestyle may as well be responsible for the good health. Attributing it to drinking water alone seems pretty far-fetched. If it is the question of supplying the body with essential minerals, eating a balanced diet or taking mineral supplements seems to be a better solution than drinking expensive water. The writer is also careful to pick only one statistic, frequency of hospitalization, as the basis of his assertion. If this is supported by other statistics like life expectancy and number of times people actually fell sick but were not hospitalized, the argument may gain some strength.

Concluding, The argument on its own seems a bit far-fetched. If it argues its case on basis of uniqueness and more statistics, it can gain some strength. On its own or with any information to the contrary it is weak and dubious.