People who use the artificial sweetener aspartame are better off consu

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 you find this argument. In your discussion, be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.


The argument claims that people who consume aspartame derive no additional benefits whatsoever than the act of consuming sugar. In fact , it asserts that high levels of aspartame increase one’s hunger and leaves one unsatiated by depriving the brain of a chemical that instils a feeling of satisfaction. Furthermore, it further drives home the implication demonstrated by studies that sugar actually strengthens the body’s ability to burn fat , especially if its consumed post 45 minutes of continuous exercise. Hence, stated in this way the argument reveals examples of leaps of faith , poor reasoning and ill defined methodology. Moreover, the conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Thus, the argument is weak and has several flaws.

Firstly, the argument readily assumes that observations made on one of the many side effects of aspartame consumption , namely it incites a craving for food , is reliable and based on sound reasoning. Specifically, this statement is a stretch as it merely states that it purges the brain’s neurotransmitters which instil the feeling of satisfaction. It doesn’t provide an example on how this will trigger hunger within people, nor does it exemplify how aspartame arouses the feeling of hunger. If anything, it merely suggests that aspartame reduces the feeling of fullness , and that it is not an agent responsible for one’s hunger. Clearly, the statement draws no parallels between aspartame and the feeling of hunger . The argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated how aspartame invokes hunger within people.

Secondly, the argument claims that sugars enhance the body’s ability to purge fat. Again, this is a weak and unsupported claim as the argument doesn’t demonstrate any correlation between sugar and the body’s natural ability to expel fat. If anything, the claim is rather dubious as foremostly , it does not mention the sample size of the study , nor the sample’s demographics . To illustrate , the study’s findings are only significant when the population is sufficiently large . Furthermore, biasness may come into play especially if the sample size is too small. If the argument had provided more reliable evidence that sugar enhances the body’s ability to burn fat, the argument would have been a lot more convincing.

Finally, several questions must be raised regarding the argument’s validity. Firstly , what basis are claims made against aspartame based upon? Particularly suspicious are the claims where aspartame is supposed to make one feel less full. Secondly , why is the argument comparing 2 completely different substances together? It is very much not unlike comparing apples with oranges. Hence, without convincing answers to these questions , one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking than substantive evidence.

In summary, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors.