▶ Your Answer : Both the lecturer and author of the reading passage are talking about synthetic substance, sucralose. The author argues that the use of sucralose, which causes severe side effects, must be banned, whereas the lecturer contradicts this argument for three reasons. First, the lecturer claims that sucralose is unlikely to cause diabetes. Although sucralose may induce the spike of insulin, it doesn't lead to diabetes. Similarly, rice and potato also produce substances related to sweets without increasing the danger of diabetes. Rather, physical condition such as obesity is responsible for diabetes. This casts doubt on the claim of the author that sucralose will increase the possibility of diabetes development. Next, the lecturer points out that sucralose doesn't produce harmful substances. This is because experimenters who conducted an experiment to verify the danger of sucralose admitted that they heated sucralose at higher temperature than normal. Therefore, there is no reliable evidence to prove that sucralose is involved with harmful substances. This counters the staement of the author that sucralo produces noxious substances. The final point made by the lecturer is that there is no evidence that sucralose has to do with allergic reactions. According to the lecturer, the anecdotes provided by people about allergies are unreliable. This is because people, who were affected by media, could have imagined that they had similar symptoms with allergic reactions. This refutes the assertion of the author that sucralose is responsible for allergic reactions. |