Short Answer
The writer should not add the proposed sentence because it lacks evidence, introduces unnecessary claims, and compromises objectivity in the discussion. Such additions could mislead readers and detract from a serious, evidence-based examination of vegetarianism’s health impacts.
Step 1: Lack of Evidence
The proposed sentence introduces a claim regarding the credibility of organizations like the American Heart Association without any supporting evidence. Claims that undermine the reputation of established organizations should always be substantiated with credible data. This absence of evidence makes the assertion questionable and potentially misleading for readers.
Step 2: Introduces Unnecessary Claims
Incorporating a statement from a movie, which is primarily a form of entertainment, into an academic discussion dilutes the argument’s seriousness. It can give the impression that the discourse on vegetarianism is being derailed by subjective opinions rather than facts. Maintaining focus on evidence-based assessment is critical for a balanced exploration of vegetarianism’s health impacts.
Step 3: Compromises Objectivity
Adding unverified claims could negatively impact the overall objectivity of the analysis regarding vegetarian and nonvegetarian diets. The goal should be to provide a well-rounded examination supported by scientific research. Readers deserve accurate and reliable information to make informed dietary choices, which this additional sentence would not support.