Water, water everywhere ... and not a drop to drink

Some diners are upset over some restaurants not offering free tap water to their patrons. Restaurants defend themselves. We analyse the arguments.

Source: The Sunday Times, 12/7/9, p.11
Headline: All stirred up over drinking water in restaurants

Quote1
A blogger, upset that a restaurant would not serve her tap water which she needed to take her medication with, is urging diners to boycott such outlets. Miss Veron Ang -- urged on by some netizens -- went further and posted on her blog a list of 62 restaurants that she claimed do not serve free water. ...

Comment1
This is the context.

Quote2
The managing director of Italian restaurant La Forketta, Ms Gracie Vitalie, said: "Our patrons are serious diners and come for our food, not to taste water. It's the customer with a budget who insists on tap water." She added that, outside Singapore, "nobody really asks for tap water". ...

Comment2
There are two arguments here.

Argument1
Premiss1: If (serious diner), then (not request tap water)
Premiss2: Serious diner
Conclusion1: Hence, (not request tap water) [to Premiss4]

Premiss3: If (not request tap water), then (not serve tap water)
Premiss4: Not request tap water [from Conclusion1]
Conclusion2: Hence, (not serve tap water)

Both parts of this argument use the Modus Ponens (If P then Q, P, hence Q) argument form, and hence are valid. If Premisses 1, 2 and 3 are all true, then Conclusion2 will also be true.

Argument2
The statement "nobody outside Singapore really asks for tap water" is an assertion that stands or falls depending on the actual state of the world. If the statement is intended to be a basis for "Hence, people in Singapore should not ask for tap water", then the argument commits the fallacy Argumentum ad Populum (appeal to the gallery) and must be rejected.

Quote3
Mr Jack Chin, co-founder of Mad Jack's, said his chain of four restaurants does not serve free water because manpower is needed to refill and wash the glasses. He added: "People who complain are not educated about business costs because nothing is free". ...

Comment3
There are also two arguments here.

Argument3
Premiss1: If (free water), then (more manpower)
Premiss2: Not-(more manpower)
Conclusion: Hence, not-(free water)

This argument has the valid Modus Tollens (If P then Q, not-Q, hence not-P) argument form. If Premisses 1, 2 are true, then the conclusion is also true.

Argument4
Premiss1: If (educated), then (not complain)
Premiss2: Complain = Not-(not complain)
Conclusion: Hence, not-(educated)

This also has the valid Modus Tollens argument form. Premiss2 is true. If Premiss1 is also true, then the conclusion is also true.

Quote4
Sales manager Renee Koh, 32, said: "Serving plain water for free should really be part of the service experience and I find it hard to think that the costs are that high, given that the water served is just chilled tap water."

Comment4
This is a rebuttal of Argument4 Premiss1, suggesting that the educated patron will see free tap water as part of the service, and will complain of poor service if free tap water is not provided.

Quote5
Mr Aun Koh, director of media and lifestyle consultancy Ate Media which published Asia's first restaurant guide The Miele Guide, said: "In Singapore, there is ... no reason other than an attempt to increase revenues for restaurateurs to refuse to offer tap water to their patrons."

Comment5
This is an assertion, and is not offered as part of any argument.

END