PrepTest 109

Incorrect. The number of athletes from each category doesn't speak to the fairness of the resources available to each category. This could be explained by there being significantly more amateur athletes than pros, or by the pros deciding to skip the games because they don't want to risk injury that could end a lucrative career.

Incorrect. Without tying this into the available resources, it's hard to know what impact this has on the argument. This could even strengthen it—if the amateurs are better at the sports that don't require many resources but the pros are better at the ones that do, then that aligns with Juan's argument.

Incorrect. Juan's argument doesn't rely on the contrast between the modern and ancient games, so this answer is out of scope. While he does bring up that comparison, it doesn't actually factor into his conclusion, which is just about fairness in the games.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Valid

Question Type:
Weaken (Juan)

Stimulus Summary:
J: Ancient Olympics — Just amateurs. Modern Olympics — Amateurs and pros. Amateurs don't have the resources of the pros and thus can't really compete, so allowing the pros in doesn't line up with the Olympic's goal of fairness.

M: The goal of the Modern Olympics is to highlight the best athletes, so pros should be allowed in.

Answer Anticipation:
We're asked to focus on Juan's argument here, which is good because Michiko's is arguably valid! We need to undermine Juan's argument.

In that argument, Juan draws a judgment in the conclusion on a topic that he doesn't discuss in the premises—fairness. When an argument draws such a judgment, it has to define what fairness is, or how a determination of fairness will be reached. This will often take the form of a generalization, or principle.

Here, Juan fails to establish a definition or principle that would allow this conclusion to be made. What he does establish is that the pros have resources that are unavailable to amateurs. So Juan is assuming that fairness requires competitors to have access to equivalent resources. Let's look for an answer that calls that into question.

Answer Explanation:
This answer calls into question whether the resources available to the different categories of athletes helps their chances at winning. If, as this answer suggests, those resources don't correlate to winning, then the resources aren't likely giving the pros a competitive advantage, suggesting the games are still fair despite the discrepancies. That weakens Juan's argument.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever a judgment is drawn in a conclusion, there needs to be a premise establishing the criteria to reach that judgment. Short of having that premise, the argument is assuming that some detail from the premises is sufficient to reach the judgment.

Incorrect. Not only does this answer choice align with Juan's argument, but he more or less states that this is the case when he brings up the lack of available resources for almost all amateur athletes. This is either something that strengthens the argument, or something that doesn't add anything.