▶ Your Answer :
The writer of the reading passage and the
lecturer talk about sucralose. The writer suggests how sucralose is hazardous to
humans’ health while the lecturer raises specific counterclaims and points out
why sucralose is not harmful to people.
First, the lecturer contends that it is
likely that sucralose causes diabetes because the fact that it causes a spike
in insulin does not mean anything. The lecturer amplifies that rice and potato
have the same result, but nobody hinders consuming those foods. What is
more, the results of the studies that the writer suggests are ridiculous
because those who drink diet soda with sucralose are already overweight. The
results of the studies are not due to sucralose, but due to their physical
conditions, obesity. This is in complete opposition to the point made in the
reading passage, indicating that sucralose puts people at increased risk for
diabetes.
Furthermore, the second assertion, that
sucralose produces harmful substances when it reaches a high enough temperature
for cooking is refuted by the lecturer. The lecturer argues that the laboratory
test the writer suggests is not reliable since the test did not involve
real-life ingredients and the researchers heated sucralose to a higher
temperature than is normally used during food preparation.
Finally, regarding the last point about
allergic reactions, the lecturer insists that it is not dependable that sucralose
triggers intense allergic reactions in one's body. Although
plenty of media have shown stories about sucralose and allergies and people
imagine that they experience similar symptoms, media's anecdotal data are
not trustworthy. This is an argument against that of the reading passage
because the writer states that sucralose can set off severe allergic reactions. |