PrepTest 127

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Scientific studies show stress is correlated with being injured in competitive sports. Risking injury is dumb, so people shouldn't use sports to reduce stress.

Answer Anticipation:
Strengthen (Principle) questions task us with justifying the judgment in the conclusion based on the details in the premises.

Here, the judgment in the conclusion is that sports shouldn't be used to cope with stress. Why not? Because stress and serious injuries are correlated in competitive sports, and risking serious injury is unwise.

That doesn't sound like a flawed argument to me—shouldn't you avoid something that's unwise? This is a jump that the LSAT will let you make—by definition, you should not do things that are unwise.

So what's the flaw in the argument? We'll have to look elsewhere, and there's a hint in the conclusion. There, a very strong/general statement is made— "no sports activity" should be used to deal with stress. Do the premises back that up? Nope—the premises establish that the risk of injury is correlated with competitive sports. The Columnist is jumping between something true of a specific subset of sports and generalizing from that to all sports, so the correct answer will need to justify that jump.

Answer Explanation:
The premises are sufficient to establish that it's "unwise" to participate in competitive sports while under stress since it's correlated with serious injury. If, as this answer choice states, it being wise to avoid a particular subset of an activity (competitive sports) is enough to justify avoiding all types of that activity, then the general conclusion about all sports is justified.

Key Takeaway:
Strengthen (Principle) questions usually have a judgment in the conclusion, details in the premises, and nothing that connects the two. Here, there was information connecting the two—a judgment in the premises that something was unwise, thus justifying a judgment that it should be avoided. As such, we had to look elsewhere for the gap in the argument, and so we fell back on our techniques for finding flaws in other question types. These rules of thumb we have are just that—rules of thumb, and that means they don't always apply.

Incorrect. The contrapositive of this answer states that if a method of coping with stress hasn't been sufficiently studied, then it should be avoided. While that principle can be used to justify the conclusion here, it's not based on the premises, where there were "[s]everal scientific studies" done and thus it has been subjected to scientific study. This answer justifies the same conclusion in a different argument, so it's incorrect.

Incorrect. The conclusion is a recommendation against participation in sports, so this answer in favor of participating in competitive sports is both the opposite of what we're looking for and limited only to the subset of the activity mentioned in the premises.

Incorrect. This answer runs counter to the argument's conclusion recommending against participation in sporting events as a means of destressing.

Incorrect. This answer is limited to those who have already been injured, whereas the stimulus is about anyone who has recently been under stress. The scope of this answer is too limited based on the broad conclusion.