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."
The author of the article argues that drinking Saluda Natural Spring Water is a wise investment in good health. To support the conclusion, the author cites the laboratory studies that show (1) Saluda Natural Spring Water (2) contain several of the minerals necessary for good health and that it is (3) completed free of bacteria. In addition, the author points out that residents of Saluda, the small town where the water is bottled, are hospitalized less frequently than the national average. A careful examination of the argument would reveal how groundless it is.
Firstly, the author (4) argues a causal link between the existences of the minerals to good health of people who drink the water. However, the author did not provide sufficient evident (5) for that. It is highly possible that people are not able to digest these minerals (6) through drinking water. In addition, if these minerals are already (7) rich in most people's normal diet, it does not help (8) by consuming more through drinking water. Without ruling out (9) all these factors, there is no guarantee that (10) the Saluda Water would benefit people who drink it.
Secondly, the author assumes that (11) residents of Saluda are hospitalized less frequently than the national average is due to the better water they drink. (12) It is not necessary true. There are many reasons (13) that residents of Saluda are hospitalized less frequently. For example, it is possible that most of the residents of Saluda are in their (14) 20s' or 30s', and thus have better health than (15) national average. If so, then residents of Saluda's health might not (16) link to the water they drink at all.
Thirdly, the author's conclusion rests on the claim that tap water does not have the same minerals (17) containing in Saluda Natural Spring Water. However, there is no fact supporting the claim. It is possible that tap water already contains most of them. (18) Before studying this issue, there is no conclusion can be drawn.
As it stands, the author's argument is not convincing. To (19) strength the argument, the author (20) should study more about the minerals that are contained in the Saluda water. In addition, the author should provide more (21) evident to support (22) that the Saluda Water leads to residents of Saluda's good health. Moreover, the quality of tap water must be analyzed as well.
(1) You need another "that" immediately before "Saluda" in "show Saluda Natural Spring Water"
(2) "Saluda Natural Spring Water" is singular. Therefore, the correct form of the verb is "contains."
(3) "it is completed free" should be " it is completely free." "co,p;eted is a verb form )past participle), whereas "completely" is the adverb and can be used to modify adjectives, such as "free.".
(4) Instead of "the author (4) argues a causal link" I would use "argue argues that there is a causal link between ingestion of the minerals and good health…" or "argues the case for a causal link.."
(5) In "the author did not provide sufficient evident for that," you do not really need "for that." However, you must use "evidence" rather than "evident."
(6) Instead of "digest these minerals through drinking water," I would use "by" rather than "through."
(7) Instead of "if these minerals are already rich in most people's normal diet," use "if most people's normal diet is already rich in these minerals…"
(8) "it does not help to consume more" sounds better than "it does not help by consuming more."
(9) Use "Without ruling out all of these factors" or "Without ruling out these factors" instead of "Without ruling out all these factors."
(10) "Saluda Water" is a proper noun (a name). Thus, there is no need to precede it by "the."
(11) Insert "the fact that."
(12) Either "This" or "That" would be a better choice than "It."
(13) "There are many reasons why" is more commonly used in instances like this than "There are many reasons that."
(14) Use 20s or 30s, instead of 20s' or 30s'.
(15) Use "the" before "national average" because "average" is noun.
(16) The commonly used way to express this thought would be "might not be linked to the water" rather than "might not link to the water."
(17) Use "contained" or "that are contained" rather than "containing."
(18) Use "Without studying this issue, no conclusion can be drawn" rather than "Before studying this issue, there is no conclusion can be drawn."
(19) Use "strengthen" (verb) rather than "strength" (noun).
(20) Although "should study more about the minerals that are contained in the Saluda water" is correct, the following is nicer: "…should study the minerals that are contained in the Saluda water more" or "…should study more the minerals that are contained in the Saluda water."
(21) Use "evidence" (noun) rather than "evident."
(22) Insert "the contention" or "the argument" before "…that the Saluda Water leads to residents of Saluda's good health" and reword it to the following:
"…the contention that Saluda Water is responsible for the good health of the residents of Saluda/"