Throughout my research I’m hoping to find evidence to prove that Spring water is better for drinking opposed to Purified water. However, if that is not the case, I’m hoping to discover which type of water is best for drinking.
Essential Content of the Article: The impurity of Purified water needs to be reduced to 10 parts per million or less to be able to be sold. Purified water is not the same thing as filtered water. Purified water is treated to remove pathogens and chemicals. Purified water meets very strict EPA purity standards but this means that the water could come from almost any source. Spring water often has more beneficial natural minerals compared to other types of water. Spring water has to meet basic EPA purity standards but there are fewer guarantees on the quality of water itself.
What it proves: This information will be useful in providing the facts for both Purified and Spring water. Gives the knowledge to be able to compare the purity standards of Purified and Spring water. Proves that Spring water contains beneficial natural minerals that purified water does not.
2. “Purified water vs. Spring Water”
Essential Content of the Article: Americans drink more than 2 billion gallons of bottled water every year. Purified water does require the removal of microbes. Natural filtration process of Spring water provides better taste and more natural minerals. Spring water can be safe to drink without any treatment but it is still required to be tested and filtered for any sediment. Many people prefer the taste of Spring water but choose Purified water instead due to its lower cost.
What it proves: Article seems to prove that Spring water is better tasting but people prefer Purified water due to it being cheaper. Proves that Spring water is safe to drink from the source but is still required to be filtered by the EPA. Makes the already safe to drink water safer than it already is while Purified water is not safe to drink at all before being put through the purification process.
3. “Spring, Drinking, Distilled vs. Purified Water Infographic Guide”
Essential Content of the Article: Spring water and Purified water could potentially come from the same source. Spring water contains nutrients like calcium, magnesium, and bicarbonate that are good for your body. When it comes to Purified water, beverage companies do not have to disclose where the water is actually coming from. The purification process removes all the natural minerals in the water.
What it proves: This proves that Spring water is more beneficial for your body due to the presence of natural minerals. Proves that Purified water companies are hiding something if they don’t have to disclose the source of their water. If Purified water can potentially come from the same source as Spring water, then why do they take it and turn it into two different products?
4. “Difference Between Purified Water and Spring Water”
Essential Content of the Article: Almost any source of water can be used as Purified water. Purified water can come from anywhere while Spring water comes from underground. Spring water is better for hydration due to the natural minerals present in the water. These minerals make it easier for the water to be transported into the bloodstream and keep a person hydrated for longer amounts of time. Purified water could potentially contain more chemicals due to the purification process.
What it proves: Proves that Spring water is easier for your body to absorb compared to Purified water. This makes Spring water a better option to truly quench your thirst.
5. “What is the best type of water to drink?”
Essential Content of the Article: Purified water is considered the most sanitary due to the strict tests it must go through. Spring water is considered more natural in general and when it comes to the taste. Some Purified water companies put natural minerals back into their water.
What it proves: Purified water is best for babies because of its cleanliness. The source of Spring water is not always guaranteed either, it could come from any source with running water on the surface.
Counterintuitive 
Well said, BeezKneez. The openness to whatever the research proves is exactly the point of testing a hypothesis. “Better for drinking” sounds like a proposal, but is it? It distinguishes between “better for drinking” and “better for cleaning laundry,” but does it differentiate between: more refreshing, better hydrating, more nutritious, less toxic, more affordable, better at replenishing minerals? We think we agree which one (or several) you mean, but assumptions are risky.
So far, you haven’t begun to find reliable sources. These breezy pronouncements from blogs whose primary purpose is to attract readers with simple formulas they can absorb in two or three seconds are not reliable. They may be true, but they’re just as likely to have been repeated by the unnamed authors of these sites from another equally unchecked source.
Any reputable source would guide you with a reference to the original. Here’s just one tiny example of the material you’re gathering:
Two claims that would be tempting to cite as fact offer no evidence. Notice that the author here puts the claims into quotes but doesn’t identify where the quotation came from.
The purpose of the article YOU’RE referencing is to create clear differences between water types so readers can quickly make distinctions on whatever basis concerns the reader. There’s nothing wrong with providing such a service, but it doesn’t suit the purposes of serious researchers. If anything, the author feels compelled to MAKE DIFFERENCES CLEAR even if they don’t exist. Otherwise, what’s the point of helping readers CHOOSE AMONG THEM?
Be on the alert for commercial bias and advertiser buy-in on these popular sites too, BK. A company that sells water filters is guaranteed to promote the water that requires you to buy filters. Advertisers would stop buying links on sites that actively discouraged readers from seeking their products.
You won’t have trouble finding 20 of these commercial or “eyeball-seeking” websites, each cycling the same quotes, BeezKneez. Read a few more of them until you notice how they cannibalize one another, very often introducing errors of fact and judgment as they “rephrase” the originals to their needs.
Anyway, you get the point. You’re embarked on a process, and you’ve started well by searching for pertinent material. The next crucial step is to filter your search results to weed out the unreliable. Replace a few of these with science.
Your reactions, please?
LikeLike
Once you have reliable original sources, BeezKneez, you’ll be able to use your considerable skill to analyze those sources effectively. You show a strong ability to summarize and clearly communicate the contents and conclusions of the articles you reference. That’s very encouraging.
LikeLike
I understand what you mean. I agree that the sources need to be more reliable and have scientific data. I’ll start my search. Thank you for your feedback
LikeLike