GMAT Essays (AWA)

The following appeared in the health section of a magazine on trends and lifestyles:
"People who use the artificial sweetener aspartame are better off consuming sugar, since aspartame can actually
contribute to weight gain rather than weight loss. For example, high levels of aspartame have been shown to trigger a
craving for food by depleting the brain of a chemical that registers satiety, or the sense of being full. Furthermore,
studies suggest that sugars, if consumed after at least 45 minutes of continuous exercise, actually enhance the
body's ability to burn fat. Consequently, those who drink aspartame-sweetened juices after exercise will also lose this
calorie-burning benefit. Thus it appears that people consuming aspartame rather than sugar are unlikely to achieve
their dietary goals."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . et



In the argument given above, the author is trying to establish a conclusion that is comparing 2 articles- sugar and aspartame- and declaring which one is better. The conclusion and the the evidences provided don't relate to a great extent and thus leave the argument flawed. The author tries to base its conclusion on studies, which don't provide enough validity to support the main positions. Thus, a flawed premise totally disrupts the structure of the argument. Even if we try to re-conceptualise the argument with the assumptions, which the author uses, it will be a tough in hand job to derive a valid conclusion.

First of all, the argument begins with a claim that sugar users are more benefitted as compared to the users of aspartame. This claim leaves the reader in a perplexed situation because the example used to support this claim is not valid and digestible to a great extent. Even if high levels of aspartame deplete the brain of a chemical, then it is not fully meant to ensure that high aspartame usage will further lead to increase in the weight or it doesn't provide much information about sugar's effect on weight reduction. Had the example provided information comparing the levels of sugar and aspartame and comparing the weight reduction benefits of both the mentioned entities, then the claim would have stood justified laying a concrete premise. So this gives a flawed start to the argument.

Secondly, the cause and effect analogy that is established in the premise dealing with the studies is erroneous. If studies show that sugar consumption after a time gap of 45 minutes leads to reduction of fat, then how can we eventually conclude that aspartame-sweetened juice consumption will lead to a loss of the body's ability to burn fat. The eventuality stating aspartame's consumption and its results, stands flawed as the example given doesn't provide enough information to solidify this effect. Had the example mentioned about the effects of aspartame consumption after at least 45 minutes, then the author might have been able justified in arriving at the cause and effect relationship that aspartame isn't suitable enough, in case one seeks to reduce weight.

Overall, the conclusion stated by the author isn't bolstered enough by the evidences and premises that are put into use. Such conclusion might have been possible, if enough information had been provided and if the assumptions would have been easily identifiable based on the former condition. If the reader had enough information and examples, which could have ensured a big scaled broad comparison, along with a deep analysis of better off situation, then the conclusion regarding which one is better out of the two for weight reduction, would have been easily fetched out. To conclude, the argument, at present, stands flawed but has a scope of improvement.