The following appeared in the health section of a magazine on trends and lifestyles

[architect.praveen]

“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.
This argument is poorly arranged and provides no particular evidence to support. There are three areas that merit further explanation before this author should receive any degree of credibility.
My first problem with this argument is that there is no scientific evidence has been provided to prove consumption of aspartame; one can gain weight rather than weight loss. The author could enhance his position by showing either a scientific data or a proper survey report that proves consumption of aspartame will contribute to weight gain.
This brings me to my second point: the author in his example says that high levels of aspartame will actuate a crave for food; my question is what if the consumption is at low levels. The author should provide some experimental evidences to support. In addition the author also needs to provide some evidences or a scientific data to prove that consumption of sugar after exercise enhance the body’s ability to burn fat where as consumption of aspartame reduces the ability to burn fat.
Lastly, I take this issue with the source of this article, which appeared in the health section of a magazine, I would like to know weather the article is reliable? And do its editor conducted and survey or he has any scientific data to strengthen this argument greatly.
There are too many holes in this argument. So it is difficult to take author seriously. Unless some further evidence surfaces in each of the three areas described above. The premises that are presented are insufficient proof that the conclusion is viable.