People who use the artificial sweetener aspartame are better off

AWA Prompt

“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.”



This argument states that people who consume aspartame, artificial sweetener, will not achieve their dietary goals as aspartame can actually contribute weight gain rather than weight loss. This conclusion is based on the premise that high levels of aspartame trigger a craving for food by depleting the levels of chemical that registers satiety. Moreover, people will lose the calorie-burning benefit if they drink the aspartame-sweetened juices after exercise as it has been observed in some studies that sugars if consumed after 45 minutes of continuous exercise will enhance the body’s ability to burn fat.

There are various assumptions based on which this argument rely and those might not be applicable in this argument. For example, the argument assumes that high levels of aspartame trigger a craving for food but it doesn’t compare it with the quantity of sugar that will have similar affect. Moreover, the argument also assumes that, in some studies, it has been found the body’s ability to burn fat enhances when people consume sugar after 45 minutes of continuous exercise but it doesn’t mention if the chemical composition of aspartame is similar to sugar or if aspartame will have same affect. Therefore, these assumptions need to be validated in order to enhance the soundness of the argument.

First, the argument doesn’t describe if the low quantity of aspartame will have same sweetening effect that people will get through sugar. It also doesn’t mention if the low quantity of aspartame will also trigger a craving for food. It could be possible that people do not have to consume higher amount of aspartame. Therefore, without describing the amount of aspartame that people need and if that amount can actually trigger cravings for food, this assumption can’t be evaluated.

Second, the argument doesn’t mention about the intensity of continuous exercise and if the aspartame will have the same effect as that of sugar if consumed after 45 minutes of continuous exercise as is mentioned in the argument. It is possible that the chemical composition of aspartame is such that it may help to replenish the glucose levels in better way in the case of high intensity exercise without affecting the body’s ability to burn fat as compared with sugar. Had the argument compared the effects of aspartame and sugar on the fat burning, it would have become just explanation for the argument soundness.

In conclusion, the author has not mentioned the details of the assumptions as described above for making the argument logical. It can be said that the argument is still open to discussion. However, if it had described the necessary information for underlying assumptions the argument could have been considered a valid and legitimate.