PrepTest 152

[lcid:3707] Prep Test 152 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S4 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Columnist: Banning performance enhancing Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: E

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Strengthen with Necessary Premise Questions

Answer choices

  1. A
    Spectators would not lose Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    First, the argument cares about inevitability and safety, not respect or harm to the sport. Second, this answer brings up what spectators "know," and the argument doesn't ever give a hint that this information would be public.
  2. B
    PEDs would not improve Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    The argument isn't about fairness, so these drugs having an equal effect on different athletes is out of scope.
  3. C
    Athletes do not take Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    The Columnist here cares about safety when athletes are going to do something regardless of the legality of it. Taking a drug that has no effect could still be dangerous.
  4. D
    Athletes currently using PEDs Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    The author wants to limit the circumstances under which these drugs are allowed in sports. There is no discussion or assumption about whether doctors are currently the ones providing the PEDs to athletes.
  5. E
    Using PEDs at unsafe Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem
    Correct. Argument or Facts:
    Argument

    Valid or Flawed:
    Flawed

    Question Type:
    Strengthen with Necessary Premise

    Stimulus Summary:
    Since athletes will do anything for an edge, banning PEDs is futile. If PEDs are given by doctors in safe doses, they're harmless. Therefore, sports leagues should allow doctors to roam around locker rooms, drugging up the athletes.

    Answer Anticipation:
    The author's making a jump between safe and unavoidable, and a judgment that something should be allowed. The answer will point out some connection between those ideas, but it's hard to anticipate what, exactly, it will state.

    Answer Explanation:
    Convoluted, but correct! The author states that athletes will take any chance they can to get a competitive advantage, so taking PEDs in inevitable, and the league should make it safe via doctors. If taking PEDs at unsafe levels gives a bigger advantage than taking them at safe levels, then athletes will inevitably do that, and the whole argument breaks down.

    Key Takeaway:
    Sometimes, recognizing the key ideas is as important as having a specific answer choice anticipation. Especially in Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions, sometimes a more generic idea of what you're looking for makes it more likely you'll stay flexible enough o find the correct answer.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion