Any college football player who uses steroids should be banned from co

Any college football player who uses steroids should be banned from competition. The national agency with the responsibility to preserve the natural competitive balance between players enforces rules specifically mandating that no player be allowed to use drugs to gain a competitive advantage. Studies show that steroid users tend to have much greater strength and weight than non-users.

Which of the following statements, if true, would most strengthen the argument?


A. Users of steroids often suffer from acne, extreme nervousness, and reduced sexual potency. -- Side-effects don't matter. IRRELEVANT

B. Increased strength is more useful than increased weight to college football players. -- Comparative analysis of increased weight to increased strength is not important. IRRELEVANT

C. Superior strength and weight give college football players a significant competitive advantage. -- CORRECT. This clearly states the assumption that superior strength and weight gained by steroid usage can be used for competitive advantage

D. Steroid use is much more prevalent in college football than in college baseball. -- We are not worried about the different categories of sports. IRRELEVANT

E. Random drug testing of athletes has been shown to be effective in the detection of drug use by athletes. -- Outside-of-scope. Doesn't link the premise with conclusion.

So, answer is C

Option C
If the usage of steroids give superior benefits, then it’s most likely to abandon the natural competitive balance and hence strengthens the idea of banning the usage of Steroids

Posted from my mobile device

arg
=steroid users banned compete
=agency enforces no drugs gain comp edge
=steroid users gain +str and +weight

str
ans (C) this links steroids w/ comp edge.

IMO C

Conclusion: Any college football player who uses steroids should be banned from competition.

Supporting Information:
Drugs that provide a competitive advantage should be banned
Steroid users tend to have much greater strength and weight than non-users.

From these two statement,
If steroids user be banned---> Steroids provide a competitive advantage . Also steroids user have greater strength & weight.
So this implies that greater strength & weight is a factor for competitive advantage.

C. Superior strength and weight give college football players a significant competitive advantage

PREMISES:-
1.Studies show that steroid users tend to have much greater strength and weight than non-users.
2.The national agency with the responsibility to preserve the natural competitive balance between players enforces rules specifically mandating that no player be allowed to use drugs to gain a competitive advantage.
CONCLUSION:-
Any college football player who uses steroids should be banned from competition.
ASSUMPTION:-ONE HAS COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE OVER OTHER IF ONE HAS GREATER STRENGTH AND WEIGHT.
Now we have to find an option which either states or suppprts the assumption thereby strengthening the argument and negating it will shatter our argument.
Now,
Which of the following statements, if true, would most strengthen the argument?

A. Users of steroids often suffer from acne, extreme nervousness, and reduced sexual potency.WE ARE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT OTHER EFFECTS OF USING STEROIDS.DOESN'T STRENGTH

B. Increased strength is more useful than increased weight to college football players.NOWHERE IN THE PASSAGE IT IS MENTIONED WHICH OF THE TWO IS MORE USEFUL.NOR DOES IT STRENGTHEN IN ANY WAY.WE ARENOT HERE TO DISCUSS WHICH IS MORE USEFUL.

C. Superior strength and weight give college football players a significant competitive advantage.BINGO!THIS IS THE ANSWER WE ARE SEARCHING FOR.

D. Steroid use is much more prevalent in college football than in college baseball.IRRELEVANT.WE ARE NOT HERE TO DISCUSS WHERE STEROID IS MORE PREVALENT.

E. Random drug testing of athletes has been shown to be effective in the detection of drug use by athletes.OUT OF SCOPE .DOESN'T STRENGTH AS WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO SHOW WHICH METHOD IS EFFICACIOUS RATHER WE ARE INTERESTED IN KNOWING THAT WHY STEROID SHOULD BE BANNED.PLUS THIS OPTION TALKS ABOUT DRUGS IN GENERAL.

Posted from my mobile device

The OA seems to be C as the argument says to have a natural competivenes hence drugs are banned. So the reason given in option C best justifies why the argument should be valid.
This is my deduction, please let me know if I am missing anywhere. Thanks.

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

(C)

Step 1: Identify the Question Type

The word “strengthen” gives this one away as a Strengthen question.

Step 2: Untangle the Stimulus

A Strengthen question is built around the argument’s assumption. “Strengthen the argument” means “strengthen the conclusion,” but you’ll be strengthening the argument’s conclusion specifically by affirming its central assumption.

The author concludes that steroid users should be banned from college football. The evidence comes in two parts. First, the rules forbid football players to use drugs to obtain a “competitive advantage.” The second piece of evidence is that steroids cause big increases in strength and weight.

Step 3: Predict the Answer

The author’s conclusion depends on the assumption that having “greater strength and weight” provides athletes with a “competitive advantage.” (It’s possible that added bulk could be a drawback for a college player; perhaps speed and flexibility are more important.) To strengthen the argument, look for an answer choice that suggests that players derive a benefit from the extra size and strength that steroids provide.

Step 4: Evaluate the Choices

(C) matches the prediction perfectly and is the correct answer.

(A) introduces several negative side effects of steroids, all of which are irrelevant to the argument.

(B) offers an irrelevant comparison between increased strength and increased weight.It doesn’t matter which of these two qualities is more important to a college football player; it only matters whether these qualities provide a competitive advantage.

(D) is another irrelevant comparison, this time between college football and college baseball. The argument is about steroid use among football players, so baseball is beside the point. The “prevalence” of steroid use is also irrelevant.

(E) is incorrect because methods of drug detection have no bearing on the argument.It doesn’t matter how players are caught.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.