There’s no reason to the previous sentence

Question

The passage below is from Jellyfish age backwards by Nicklas Brendborg.

Despite the overwhelming amount of evidence, some people desperately want cardiovascular diseases to be about something other than cholesterol. They have even tried constructing elaborate conspiracy theories where cholesterol is harmless and Big Bad Pharma is just out to steal our money. One reason that theory is tempting to some is that eggs are delicious, but also have a high cholesterol content. Health authorities used to vilify eggs based on the logic that eating a lot of cholesterol would increase blood levels of LDL cholesterol, causing heart attacks. However, health authorities have relaxed a bit lately. If you like eggs, you can take a deep breath, too. You see, we don’t just get cholesterol from our food; our bodies can make it by themselves as well. In fact, most of the cholesterol in our bodies is not from food we’ve eaten, but instead has been produced by us. That means there isn’t necessarily a connection between how much cholesterol you eat and how much cholesterol you have in your blood. If you eat more cholesterol, your body will simply turn its own production down.

In this passage I have a question in the underlined part.

In the former underlined sentence there are conspiracy theories that claim cholesterol is harmless and Big Bad Pharma is just out to steal our money. And in the latter sentence says that it gives one reason that the conspiracy theory is tempting is that eggs are delicious, but also have a high cholesterol content.

This is my question. However I may try, I cannot accept that ‘eggs are delicious, but also have a high cholesterol content’ can be one reason of the conspiracy theory that cholesterol is harmless.

Can you tell me where I am wrong or is there any possibility that I’m right about my question?

Thanks in advance.

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

Stenka25There’s no reason to the previous sentence

I agree. You found a mistake. The writer (or, more likely, the translator) tried to slip in a fact about cholesterol levels in eggs, but it ruined his sentence. He was making a facetious observation, joking that the conspiracy theorists are so worked up about it only because eggs are so tasty, and they therefore want to keep eating them if it kills them. The problem is that they are not all worked up because eggs contain cholesterol, and that idea is nonsense in the context. I might have made it

"One reason that theory is tempting to some is that eggs are delicious. But they also have a high cholesterol content."

There’s no reason to the previous sentence

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions