One of the limiting factors in human physical performance is the amoun

I'd bet for 'B':

Premise 1: One of the limiting factors in human physical performance is the amount of oxygen
that is absorbed by the muscles from the bloodstream.
Premise 2: ...entrepreneurs have begun selling bottles of drinking water, labeled
“SuperOXY,” that has extra oxygen dissolved in the water
Premise 3: the only way to get oxygen into the bloodstream so that it can be absorbed by the muscles is
through the lungs =>
Conclusion: Such water ("SuperOXY") would be useless in improving physical performance

improving physical performance = get rid of the limiting factors
1 of the limiting factors = quantity of oxygen that is absorbed by the muscles (from premise 1)
Assumption: to drink "SuperOXY" = to provide oxygen to the muscles = improve physical performance
Premise 3 destroys such assumption and provides evidence for the conclusion

'B' also destroys such assumption and provides evidence for the conclusion because the fact that "amount of oxygen in the blood of people who are exercising is already more than the muscle can absorb" makes any additional oxygen unnecessary and as a consequence makes "SuperOXY" useless in improving physical performance

'A' on the other hand actually is out of scope because we don't know whether the fact that "the water lost in exercising can be replaced with ordinary tap water" makes "SuperOXY" useless in improving physical performance.

I think the answer to this question is B because the statement in boldface suggects
one of the reason why such water would not be usefull in physical performance. Option
B suggect another rason thatsince oxygen is alrady sufficient sufficient for muscles to absorb,
such water will be useleass.
A should be wrong because ordinary tap water can replace the water does not mean SuperOXY become useless.
For example, A medicine curing an desease does not implies that other medicine curing the same desease will become useless.

I'll try, my friend. OA is B because of the way the argument is set up. The bold text is the evidence to the claim that drinking water with oxygen in it won't help out physical performance. So out of the answer choices we're trying to find something else that would be used as evidence to support the same claim. Therefore, if we didn't know that oxygen in the stomach doesn't help it get absorbed to the muscles because it's not through the lungs which answer would make sense? It's B because B means that the body doesn't need MORE oxygen. Rather it needs to BETTER absorb the oxygen it already has. It's completely different evidence but if it's true then drinking oxygen in your water would just give more oxygen and the body wouldn't be able to absorb it and use it for enhanced performance. Does that make sense?

D is a true statement but it does not do anything for the argument. Frequent exercise has nothing to do with disproving the effectiveness of drinking water with oxygen it to ultimately help out muscle performance. It just has to do with muscle performance it self.

another problem with e seems to be that it is just paraphrasing what is already given in the argument. the argument starts off by saying: "One of the limiting factors" - so we already know there are other factors.. whats the point of having E? i eliminated e on that basis... not sure if that was the right approach though...

Sure it makes sense. An option acting as a premise will have new information. Option (E) here doesn't. Good call.
Just be aware that sometimes what seems a rehash may actually be new. So be careful when eliminating options on that basis.

Bumping for review and further discussion
New GmatClub project Click here

New Gmat club project
Click here

Do not agree with choice A here. I would go with B.

Conclusion:
Such water would be useless in improving physical performance, however, since the only way to get oxygen into the bloodstream so that it can be absorbed bye the muscles is through the lungs.

We need to provide an alternate reasoning to prove that such water is useless in improving physical performance, which is related to the amount of oxygen absorbed by the muscles from the bloodstream.

A. the water lost in exercising can be replaced with ordinary tap waterThis choice tells that the water lost during exercising can be replaced with ordinary water but does not give any information about improvement in physical performance after replacement.
B. the amount of oxygen in the blood of people who are exercising is already
more than the muscle can absorbThis choice exactly points that the amount of oxygen present in the people who exercise is already more and hence undermines the idea to use "SuperOXY" water to improve physical performance.

New project Gmatclub
Click here

Hi Bunuel
Add notes doesn't work here. It should be fixed. Thanks__

It works perfectly right now. Thanks__

Stimulus: B; P; C/P
So we’re looking for a premise; hence, the premise indicator (since) before the boldface. The way the this premise is substantiating the conclusion is by hitting on the point of absorption compared to that of volume/quantity of oxygen (i.e., the extra oxygen this new drink is selling).
A. This doesn’t hit the point about the difference mentioned above. Just states a fact that the water isn’t necessary, without any support.
B. Okay so this says that you can increase what you take in (i.e., more quantity)
a. This would weaken the argument, if anything
b. We want to look for something that shows why an increase of oxygen won’t do anything to improve physical performance
C. Okay the new water with more oxygen (essentially in physical form) wouldn’t absorption (of oxygen) by the muscles if they ONLY way to get oxygen is…through the lunges
a. This shows why absorption won’t be affect with an increase of volume/quantity, so this is probs the answer
D. This doesn’t hit on the absorption aspect at all
a. The way the bold is utilized is to show WHY the water is useless in imprvoign physical performance; more specifically, it states that the blood CANNOT absorb any more oxygen into the muscle cells. Saying that lack of oxygen isn’t the only factor limiting the aforementioned physical performance has no relevance to the way in which the bold is used.
b. ALSO…first sentence in the stimulus – “One of the limiting factors in…is the amount of oxygen that is absorbed by the muscles…”
i. This already alludes to the point that lack of oxygen is a limiting factor
ii. Keep in mind that this isn’t necessarily the same thing as the stimulus’ statement; the stimulus states that the amount of oxygen that is ABSORBED by the muscle is a limiting factor
iii. This answer merely states that lack of oxygen is not the only limiting factor
E. This doesn’t hit on the absorption aspect at all
a. We know nothing about the tap water; no need for real world assumptions and going down a made up story route to fit the bill

The function of the boldfaced statement is to highlight another reason why drinking this ''new water'' would be useless in improving physical performance.

(A) the water lost in exercising can be replaced with ordinary tap water - the passage is not concerned with the loss of water.

(B) the amount of oxygen in the blood of people who are exercising is already more than the muscle can absorb - (B) lets us know that as things stand, the muscles' capability to absorb water is already maxed out. So, even if this new ''water'' drink is consumed, it will not improve physical performance. Hence, (B) weakens the conclusion and echos the function of the boldfaced statement in the argument. Therefore, (B) is the right answer choice.

(C) world-class athletes turn in record performance without such water - the passage does not focus on ''word class athletes''.

(D) frequent physical exercise increases the body’s ability to take in and use oxygen - this means that the body can now accept more oxygen. Hence, the muscles are now capable of absorbing more oxygen. This fact in turn will lend support to the use of ''new water'' drink sold by the entrepreneurs.

(E) lack of oxygen is not the only factor limiting human physical performance - irrelevant.

I get the point, we are looking for a point that supports the conclusion 'Such water would be useless in improving physical performance' ie. we are looking for an assumption that is alternate to the bold face clause.
So, option B: the amount of oxygen in the blood of people who are exercising is already more than the muscle can absorb
will show that even though the water may provide more oxygen, but as the bloodstream already contains more oxygen than what the muscles can absorb, so adding more oxygen won't help in improving the performance.

VeritasKarishma Mam

Had there been an option on the lines of:

Lungs can process the same amount of oxygen from water, irrespective of the amount of oxygen present in water.

Would it have been a correct option?

This statement doesn't make much sense. How can lungs process oxygen from water? Lungs absorb oxygen from the air we breathe in. This oxygen then dissolves in the blood. The muscles then absorb the oxygen from the blood stream.

Water we drink doesn't reach lungs and shouldn't. It goes into the digestive tract from where nutrients could be absorbed by the blood stream. The argument tells us that that doesn't happen with oxygen.

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.