essay - GMAT: Argument 7

Question:
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 . . . etc.

Answer:
The author claims that aspartame cannot be an substitute for sugar by two reasons, which are first that aspartame can make people eat more, then that aspartame doesn't have a benefit that sugar has. Yet, we can find out apparently two flaws that make the argument weak to convince.

First, in the former example, the author mentions "high levels of" aspartame can cause people to feel more appetite, resulting in gaining more weight, but the degree of "high level" is uncertain. Every good stuff has the extent to which people gain the benefit from it. Extending some extent, people will suffer from the stuff that is supposed to be good. Therefore, the author should have clearly mentioned what degree aspartame is in the example, because otherwise the example is considered to have a serious flaw in it.

Then, in the latter example, the author sees a calorie-burning benefit that sugar has as a significant benefit, but this argument is weak. First, it's unclear how beneficial the body's ability to burn fat is. Sugar might equip people with the ability to burn calorie, but at the same time sugar would bring the people calorie. Second, the condition of this story is to exercise at least 45 minutes before taking sugar, but this condition makes gaining the benefit difficult. How many people exercise more than 45 minutes on a regular basis, and how many people don't forget to take sugars after the exercise?

In summary, the argument has obviously weak examples, making the claim unconvincing. The author at least should strengthen the two example that he takes more convincing at the points I mentioned above.