You might be thinking that increased hunger after exercise shows the exercise is "working." But let's trace through what
actually happens.
The Weight Loss Rule:Weight loss occurs when:
Calories consumed < Calories burnedThe Advertisement's Logic:• Skip lunch =
Save ~500 calories• Exercise instead =
Burn ~200 calories• Total benefit =
700 calorie deficit →
Weight loss!What Option B Does:Option B says exercise → increased appetite → people eat more later
Here's the mechanism:• Skip lunch = Save
500 calories ✓
• Exercise = Burn
200 calories ✓
•
BUT increased appetite → eat
800+ calories at dinner
• Net result =
GAIN calories overall →
No weight loss!Simple Example:Imagine you skip a
$10 lunch to save money, but the hunger makes you so ravenous that you spend
$20 on dinner instead. Did you save money?
No! You actually spent
$10 more.
Therefore: Option B
weakens the argument by showing the program
backfires - people end up consuming
more calories overall, not fewer.
The advertisement assumes: Skip lunch → eat less overall
Option B reveals: Skip lunch + exercise → eat
MORE overall
This is why B is a
classic weakener - it attacks the
effectiveness of the proposed solution!
nirmalsingh19
Doesn't option B strengthen the argument?