My audience is individuals who rely on nutrient supplements for optimal health. My 'What Are The Consequences Of . . .' (WATCO) question is: What are the consequences of relying on nutrient supplements for optimal health on an individual's actual optimal health? In this question the A term is 'relying on nutrient supplements for optimal health,' and the B term is 'an individual's actual optimal health'.

From this WATCO question, I craft the enthymeme: Relying on nutrient supplements for optimal health does not produce it because nutrient supplements in natural foods are absorbed better than nutrients in supplements. The C term that is added here is 'nutrients in natural foods are absorbed better than nutrients in supplements'. Within this enthymeme I imply that whatever nutrients are absorbed better also produce optimal health. Within this assumption there is also the assumption that foods chosen in an individual's diet will have the adequate nutrients available for absorption.

I think my implicit assumption is a solid assumption. If you don't absorb a nutrient, it can do nothing for your body; whereas, if your body absorbs a nutrient, the nutrient can do something for your body. Pretty simple and pretty acceptable for an audience. While this implicit assumption would not be a problem in a persuasive manuscript, the reader would have the right to ask if there were certain nutrients that could be over-absorbed in natural foods. My counter-argument would state that overdoesing on a natural food is likely only in the most extreme cases; whereas, it is much easier to overdoes on supplements, which do not have to have any sort of check on safety. The chances for nutrient toxicity in foods found on our table is almost non-existent while on the other hand toxicity from nutrient supplements is much more common.