|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
17 Jun 2018, 09:47
Kudos
Bookmarks
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.
My essay:
The author of the newspaper editorial concludes that while comparing success rate of achieving dietary goal between two sets of people: one consuming sugar and another consuming artificial sweeteners, former are more likely to succeed. He bases his assertion on two main premises: one, aspartame contributes to weight gain by depleting the chemical that registers satiety and second, sugar helps burn calories if consumed 45 minutes post exercise.
Stated in this way, the author's argument fails to take into account several key factors, on the basis of which it can be evaluated. The conclusion of argument relies on assumptions which can't be fully substantiated. The argument is, therefore, unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that people who rely on artificial sweetener are consuming it to levels high enough to deplete the brain of satiety-registering chemical. This statement is a stretch since most people might be taking aspartame in low to moderate amounts which doesn't create the consequence of triggering a food craving as is mentioned in the argument. For example, if the research says, 500 mg of aspartame in 1 glass of smoothed curtails the brain of required chemical and if the people are only taking about 10-25 mg per glass, then definitely, this consequence is nullified.
Second, the argument outright rejects the possibility that some people might be taking aspartame for reasons other than weight loss. For example, doctors usually recommend aspartame or similar artificial sweeteners to diabetic patients. If the argument provided evidence that the comparison between natural and artificial sugar drawn in the argument is solely for the purpose of weight management, the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Third, the author provides no concrete basis for stating that aspartame doesn't provide calorie-burning benefit post continuous exercise like sugar does. Just as author has mentioned a study as the basis for the fat-burning benefits of sugar, similarly another study mentioning no such benefits of aspartame would have made the argument air-tight.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be clearly strengthened if the author mentioned all the relevant facts such as more background information about the people assessed and concrete studies to substantiate the claims about artificial sweeteners. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated an open to debate.
My essay:
The author of the newspaper editorial concludes that while comparing success rate of achieving dietary goal between two sets of people: one consuming sugar and another consuming artificial sweeteners, former are more likely to succeed. He bases his assertion on two main premises: one, aspartame contributes to weight gain by depleting the chemical that registers satiety and second, sugar helps burn calories if consumed 45 minutes post exercise.
Stated in this way, the author's argument fails to take into account several key factors, on the basis of which it can be evaluated. The conclusion of argument relies on assumptions which can't be fully substantiated. The argument is, therefore, unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that people who rely on artificial sweetener are consuming it to levels high enough to deplete the brain of satiety-registering chemical. This statement is a stretch since most people might be taking aspartame in low to moderate amounts which doesn't create the consequence of triggering a food craving as is mentioned in the argument. For example, if the research says, 500 mg of aspartame in 1 glass of smoothed curtails the brain of required chemical and if the people are only taking about 10-25 mg per glass, then definitely, this consequence is nullified.
Second, the argument outright rejects the possibility that some people might be taking aspartame for reasons other than weight loss. For example, doctors usually recommend aspartame or similar artificial sweeteners to diabetic patients. If the argument provided evidence that the comparison between natural and artificial sugar drawn in the argument is solely for the purpose of weight management, the argument would have been a lot more convincing.
Third, the author provides no concrete basis for stating that aspartame doesn't provide calorie-burning benefit post continuous exercise like sugar does. Just as author has mentioned a study as the basis for the fat-burning benefits of sugar, similarly another study mentioning no such benefits of aspartame would have made the argument air-tight.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be clearly strengthened if the author mentioned all the relevant facts such as more background information about the people assessed and concrete studies to substantiate the claims about artificial sweeteners. Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated an open to debate.
Moderators:
188 posts
