7.
　　 In this argument the author concludes that people trying to lose weight are better off consuming sugar than the artificial sweetener aspartame. To support this conclusion the author argues that aspartame can cause weight gain by triggering food cravings, whereas sugar actually enhances the body's ability to bum¹ fat. Neither of these reasons provides sufficient support for the conclusion.

      The first reason that aspartame encourages food cravings is supported by research findings that high level s of aspartame deplete² the brain chemical responsible for registering a sense of being sated, or full. But the author's generalization³ based on this research is unreliable. The research was based on a sample in which large amounts of aspartame were administered; however, the author applies the research findings to s target population that includes all aspartame users, many of whom would probably not consume high levels of the artificial sweetener.

      The second reason that sugar enhances the body's ability to bum fat is based on the studies in which experimental groups, whose members consumed sugar after at least 45 minutes of continuous exercise, showed increased rates of fat burning. The author's general claim, however, applies to all dieters who use sugar instead of aspartame, not just to those who use sugar after long periods of exercise. Once again, the author's generalization is unreliable because it is based on a sample that clearly does not represent all dieters.

      To conclude, each of the studies cited by the author bases its findings on evidence that does not represent dieters in general; for this reason, neither premise⁴ of this argument is a reliable generalization. Consequently, I am not convinced that dieters are better off consuming sugar instead of aspartame.
8. 
　　Based upon a survey among workers that indicates a high level of interest in the topics of corporate⁵ restructuring and redesign of benefits programs, the author concludes that workers are not apathetic⁶ about management issues. Specifically, it is argued that since 79 percent of the 1200 workers who responded to survey expressed interest in these topics, the notion that workers are apathetic about management issues is incorrect. The reasoning in this argument is problematic in several respects.

      First, the statistics cited in the editorial may be misleading because the total number of workers employed by the corporation is not specified⁷. For example, if the corporation employs 2000 workers, the fact that 79 percent of the nearly 1200 respondents showed interest in these topics provides strong support for the conclusion. On the other hand, if the corporation employs 200,000 workers, the conclusion is much weaker.

      Another problem with the argument is that the respondents' views are not necessarily representative of the views of the work force in general. For example, because the survey has to do with apathy⁸, it makes sense that only less apathetic workers would respond to it, thereby⁹ distorting the overall picture of apathy among the work force. Without knowing how the survey was conducted, it is impossible to assess whether or not this is the case.

      A third problem with the argument is that it makes a hasty generalization about the types of issues workers are interested in. It accords with common sense that workers would be interested in corporate restructuring and redesign of benefits programs, since these issues affect workers very directly. However, it is unfair to assume that workers would be similarly interested in other management issues ones that do not affect them or affect them less directly.

      In conclusion, this argument is not convincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the author would have to show that the respondents account for a significant and representative portion of all workers. Additionally, the author must provide evidence of workers' interest other management topics not just those that affect workers directly.