Logical reasoning PrepTest 114 · Section 2 · Question 21

Incorrect. The argument actually doesn't care about muscle mass leading to strength since engineered foods don't have this effect. While the argument does rely on connective tissue not building strength (which it establishes as true), even if muscle mass doesn't, the recommendation against engineered foods could still stand because it's not helping to reach the goal of enhanced strength.

Incorrect. The conclusion is about athletes, so non—athletes are out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Engineered foods increase connective tissue but not muscle mass, so they don't increase strength. Athletes need strength. Therefore, athletes shouldn't consume engineered foods.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument makes a recommendation in the conclusion—that athletes should skip over engineered foods. When an argument makes a recommendation (even one against something), it needs to establish the criteria by which a recommendation will be made. Here, that would take the form of some type of rule on what athletes should and shouldn't consume.

The premises here do establish a goal of athletes—to build muscular strength. And it is established that engineered foods don't help with this goal. However, it never establishes that this is the only goal of athletes, or that they shouldn't do anything that won't help them meet this goal. For example, engineered foods are established as helping to increase connective tissue—while this doesn't help with strength, maybe athletes can also use more connective tissue, maybe for balance or to avoid injury. Or maybe connective tissue doesn't help them at all, but engineered foods don't hurt and thus there's no reason to recommend avoiding them ("shouldn't").

Since the argument fails to establish the criteria by which this recommendation can be made—specifically it doesn't establish that building muscular strength is the only relevant criteria—it's flawed. We should look for an answer that establishes the criteria here.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes a principle that allows a recommendation against engineered foods to be made. Engineered foods don't improve muscle strength so this answer establishes they have no other substantial advantage. Thus a recommendation against it makes sense. If there are other benefits then athletes might want to consume it thus undermining the argument. This answer is therefore correct.

Key Takeaway:
Arguments that reach recommendations—whether something should or shouldn't be done—need to establish the criteria for making that recommendation. And establishing one goal isn't enough to recommend against something that doesn't help meet that goal—it needs to be established that the action in question doesn't help with any potential goal or at least the balance of goals it hurts vs. helps in more in the first category.

Incorrect. While consuming these foods being unhealthy is one potential reason to recommend against the foods, it's not the only reason, and so this answer isn't necessary for the argument to work. Even if they're not unhealthy, they could still be something athletes should skip (for example, if they take up calories that would be better spent on strength—growing foods).

Incorrect. This answer gives a reason for athletes to consume engineered foods, not to avoid them, so it hurts the argument.