I pointed out the logical fallacy in the parent's example. Look at the water version of their paragraph: 'In [thirst], there are lots of situations where the

I pointed out the logical fallacy in the parent's example. Look at the water version of their paragraph: 'In [thirst], there are lots of situations where the cost is X dollars vs literal death. Of course, death is not an acceptable alternative, so an acceptable X ends up being very, very high for the [bottled water]. Most people would pay their life savings to treat themselves of [thirst].' The parent 'proved too much'; there are many situations where a good or service is required for survival, but that alone does not cause the price to rise. The lack of alternatives (I.e. defensible monopoly) is what causes high prices.