To elaborate on what I believe Wildcat meant:
Subject == Caffeine consumption, the effects of
Dichotomy == Consumption is advantageous vs Consumption is not advantageous
Object == Bringing back to normal
Object (what they take as the
conclusion, whch is in itself questionable due to the factors I've already mentioned) has been conflated with the
premises of the dichotomy they were trying to establish. They are saying that caffeine consumption is not advantageous because it simply returns equillibrium to normality. This, however, represents a failure to define what was and was not to be considered advantageous in advance of the "experiment". The conclusion has actually defined the criteria for the original dichotomy they were supposedly testing, thus robbing it of any possible validity. They're essentially saying "We set out to find whether caffiene consumption was advantageous or not. We carried out our experiments, then when we had the results, and not before, defined our criteria for determining whether or not it was advantageous. The category for non-advantageousness was therefore framed in advance as 'Whatever the results of our experiment are' "
No, people, just NO.