Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Because addictive drugs are phsyically harmful, their use by [#permalink]
11 Aug 2005, 06:35
0% (00:00) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions
HideShow timer Statictics
Because addictive drugs are phsyically harmful, their use by atheletes is never justified. Purists, however, claim that taking massive doses of even such nonaddictive drugs as aspirin and vitamins before competing shoudl also be prohibited because they are unnatural. This is ridiculous; almost everything in sports is unnatural, from high-tech running shoes to padded boxing gloves to highly-specialized body building machines. Yet, none of these is prohibited on the basis of it being unnatural. Furthermore, we should be attending to far more serious problems that plague modern sports and result in unnecessary deaths and injuries. Therefore, the use of nonaddictive drugs by atheletes shoudl not be prohibited.
Which one of the following statements, if true, would be the strongest challenge to the author's conclusion?
A) Massive doses of aspirin and vitamins enhance atheletic performance
B) Addictive drugs are just as unnatural as nonaddictive drugs like aspirin and vitamins
C) Unnecessary deaths and injuries occur in other walks of life besides modern sports
D) There would be more unnecessary deaths and injuries if it were not for running shoes, boxing gloves and bodybuilding machines
E) Taking massive doses of aspirin or vitamins can be physically harmful
The authors conclusion is that we should focus on those items which are physically harmful and can cause injuries.
If Vitamins and asprin cause problems, then we should get rid of those.
He thinks there are no side effects.
i am going with B here. the author argues that the nonaddictive drugs and their misuses such as taking massive doses shouldnt be prohibited. he believes that they are NOT UNNATURAL. however he believes in the first sentence that addictive drugs are bad for athletes and therefore unnatural. if we plug ADDICTIVE DRUGS just as bad as NONADDICTIVE drugs which means that ADDICTIVE DRUGS = NONADDICTIVE in the arguement above it falls apart. B is the right answer.
Furthermore, we should be attending to far more serious problems that plague modern sports and result in unnecessary deaths and injuries
If aspirin and vitamins in massive doses are physically harmful, then he would be in favor of banning them. See above quote. He is against addictive drugs for the same reason. See the first sentence in the paragraph.
Use of non addictive drugs shud not be prohibited. The author's point: It is ridiculous to reject a non addictive drug because it is unnatural. When he concludes that these drugs should not be prohibited, he assumes that these drugs can only be unnatural and not life threatening. E challenges his assumption and reasoning. By his own words he wants the authorities to attend to serious problems like life threatening drug effects.
E is my choice. When E is added to the argument, it basically uses the author's own line of reasoning to rebut it. Aspirin is hamrful, so he should be concerned about it and ban it.
D can actually strengthen the author's case. If massive doses of aspirin or similar drugs can help heal a person, then they are similar to running shoes, boxing gloves etc., then they obviously should not be banned.
The OA is E. I dont have OE becuase its from the "Official LSAT Preptest" material. I know the quality of questions are legit.
For those of you who chose AC E over D, why wouldnt a "causal" arugement be applicable. The author tries to strengthen his argument by saying "hey asprin is very much like all other unatural stuff - shoes, etc, etc". But AC D is saying, "they arent the same because lack of shoes, equipment, etc, etc results in more deaths".
I'll post another question [I know posting 2 different questions within the same thread is a No No, but i want to drive home a point and this question will help us better understand AC D in the context of the argument].
For those of you who chose E [over D], and anyone else too, could you please try the following question:
High School students who feel that they are not succeeding in school often drop out before graduating and go to work. Last year, however, the city's high school dropout rate was significantly lower than the previous year's rate. This is encouraging evidence that the program instituted two years ago to improve the morale of high school students has begun to take effect to reduce dropouts.
Which of the following if true about the last year, most seriously wekanes the argument?
A) There was a recession that caused a high level of unemployment in the city
B) The morale of students who dropped out of high school had been low even before they reached high school
C) As in the preceding year, more high school students remained in school than dropped out
D) High schools in the city established placement offices to assist their graduates in obtaining employmen
E) The antidropout program was primarily aimed at improving students' morale in those high schools with the highest dropout rates