The argument that consumption of artificial sweetener aspartame contributes to weight gain rather than weight loss omits some important concerns that must be addressed to substantiate the argument. The argument presents some inconclusive information, providing dubious support and from this draws unreasonably far-reaching conclusions.
The argument is flawed for a number of reasons. Primarily, it has assumed that the effects of aspartame are the same on all people. Different people have different tendencies of reaction from their bodies on the same chemical. The argument has not taken this into consideration. Also, it has been mentioned that high levels of aspartame trigger a craving for food by depleting the brain of a chemical that registers satiety. This evidence cited uses ambiguous language. How much high or the level of aspartame that triggers this craving has not been mentioned. Also, there can be chances that there are other ingredients along with aspartame in the sweetener that may trigger this craving. Nothing has been mentioned on this. It can also be that it may not be aspartame, but some other ingredient which may be present in it may be the actual cause for the craving.
The argument also fails to provide any information on the food that these people consume, when they have a craving for food on depletion of the chemical that registers satiety. It may be also that it may be due to the food that these people consume is responsible for the weight gain rather than aspartame. Nothing has been mentioned on this. If evidence on the food habits of these people have been provided, then it would strengthened the argument.
The argument draws another untenably strong conclusion when it asserts that people who consume aspartame sweetened juices will lose calorie burning benefit. No study or the reason behind why sugar enhances calorie burning has been provided. If some study, or the chemical reaction s which sugars have other than aspartame which is mainly responsible for this calorie burning benefit has been provided, then this reasoning would have sound good.
Having presented all these questionable evidence, the argument draws a far reaching conclusion that people consuming aspartame rather than sugar are unlikely to achieve their dietary goals. The argument is neither sound nor persuasive. The author has failed to provide any compelling reasons that aspartame is the only reason why people consuming it are not able to achieve their dietary goals, without taking into consideration other significant issues into light.
The argument is flawed for a number of reasons. Primarily, it has assumed that the effects of aspartame are the same on all people. Different people have different tendencies of reaction from their bodies on the same chemical. The argument has not taken this into consideration. Also, it has been mentioned that high levels of aspartame trigger a craving for food by depleting the brain of a chemical that registers satiety. This evidence cited uses ambiguous language. How much high or the level of aspartame that triggers this craving has not been mentioned. Also, there can be chances that there are other ingredients along with aspartame in the sweetener that may trigger this craving. Nothing has been mentioned on this. It can also be that it may not be aspartame, but some other ingredient which may be present in it may be the actual cause for the craving.
The argument also fails to provide any information on the food that these people consume, when they have a craving for food on depletion of the chemical that registers satiety. It may be also that it may be due to the food that these people consume is responsible for the weight gain rather than aspartame. Nothing has been mentioned on this. If evidence on the food habits of these people have been provided, then it would strengthened the argument.
The argument draws another untenably strong conclusion when it asserts that people who consume aspartame sweetened juices will lose calorie burning benefit. No study or the reason behind why sugar enhances calorie burning has been provided. If some study, or the chemical reaction s which sugars have other than aspartame which is mainly responsible for this calorie burning benefit has been provided, then this reasoning would have sound good.
Having presented all these questionable evidence, the argument draws a far reaching conclusion that people consuming aspartame rather than sugar are unlikely to achieve their dietary goals. The argument is neither sound nor persuasive. The author has failed to provide any compelling reasons that aspartame is the only reason why people consuming it are not able to achieve their dietary goals, without taking into consideration other significant issues into light.
