plaverbach wrote:
Modern racing bicycles are constructed of carbon fiber and titanium, exotic materials originally developed for aerospace applications. These materials allow top athletes to achieve stunning feats of performance and are necessary at the top level of competition, where competitors are already in top physical form and winning riders often finish fractions of a second ahead of their opponents. For an amateur competitor riding in a race where several minutes may separate competitors at the finish, these exotic machines are a waste of money and offer little significant advantage.
Which of the following, if found to be true, would most effectively undermine the argument above?
a - Many professional cyclists don't ride off-the-shelf bicycles but rather custom-built prototypes that incorporate technology not yet available to the general public.
b - Carbon fiber and titanium are no longer used exclusively for exotic aerospace applications but now appear in such prosaic settings as family cars and golf clubs.
c - Professional cyclists often have their bicycles provided to them as part of a sponsorship agreement while a member of the general public interested in a comparable bicycle would have to spend in excess of $8,000.
d - An amateur competitor riding a professional-quality racing bicycle can find that his time in a racing event will be several minutes quicker than his time in the same event in a previous year with an ordinary bicycle.
e - Maintaining exotic materials such as carbon fiber used to be considered challenging and expensive, but improved manufacturing and greater knowledge among amateur cyclists mean that professional grade bicycles no longer need to be pampered in a way that is unrealistic for a non-professional.
Correct Answer: D
This argument plays on the assumption that if professionals ride exotic bicycles but finish races a fraction of a second apart, then the bicycle must be contributing only a fraction of a second's worth of performance. Since amateurs finish minutes apart, an exotic bicycle, the argument assumes, would not make enough of a difference to improve the competitor's standing. Undermining this assumption would weaken the argument, as answer choice (D) does, by indicating that an amateur riding an exotic bicycle might improve their time by several minutes.
Answer choices (A) and (C) indicate that there might be a greater gulf between amateur bicycles and professional bicycles than even the original argument asserts, so they might strengthen the argument instead of weakening it. Both are, in addition, out of scope of the assumption we are targeting.
Choices (B) and (E) indicate that perhaps these exotic bicycles are not so exotic as once thought but do not discuss the competitive advantage that they do (or do not) offer.