I think answer should be D. If we assume the amount one trains does not influence one's VO2 max, the argument falls apart. In the case of aerobic activity, if one runner had a heart rate of 146 and the other had 156, definitely their rate of activity is different. Now, since their heart rate is 168 beats per minute, we see an increase which will result in change of VO2 max.

Hello KS15
Conclusion in argument says that runners will react on intensive training in similar way as they react on calm training. For example if runner A has a different reaction on intensive training and spends much more O2 during it then finally runner B will have greater VO2 max and conclusion is wrong.

Answer B gives us this assumption and says that there is no difference in runners reaction on intensive training.

Let apply negation test to answer D:
"The amount one trains does not influence one’s VO2 max."
Does this destroy conclusion? No it just say that training influences VO2 max so this fact change nothing: maybe conclusion correct maybe not.

D is tempting because if it true then conclusion is true: if VO2 max doesn't change from trainings then after intensive training Runner A will have greater VO2 max.
But this is not assumption because this answer does not support logic of argument:
If VO2 max does not change from training then all argument reasonings about moderate and intensive trainings do not have any sense: runner A will have greater VO2 max independently from amount and intensivity of trainings.
Negation test quickly helps to see fact that answer D is not assumption.
_________________

if A>B, then A+x>B+x

Because x the same

B

Did pre-thinking here.. so the answer basically explains how the VO2 max would be correlated even when the training sessions involves over 168 beats per min.. based on that I am going with , as increased intensive training would still not influences the VO2 max measurement. The intention is to address the assumption that addresses the conclusion (Based on which we can eliminate all other choices)

During the period in which there are no competitive races, two runners--Runners A and Runners B--take part in an experiment measuring their VO2 max, the volume of oxygen an athlete can use. During these sessions, the runners engaged in moderate aerobic activity, or a sustained heart rate between 146-154 beats per minute. At the end of the sessions, Runner A had a greater VO2 max than Runner B. Therefore, once the two runners begin identical intensive training--sessions involving over 168 beats per minute-- for the race season, Runner A will continue to have the greater VO2 max, assuming that neither become injured and that both train with similar intensity.

Which of the following is an assumption upon which the argument rests?

A. Runner A and Runner B had similar VO2 maxes upon entering the study.

B. Regarding their VO2 maxes, runners respond equally to intensive training.

C. Intensive training involves sessions in which athletes maintain a heartbeat over 168 beats per minute.

D. The amount one trains does not influence one’s VO2 max.

E. During the experiment, Runner A did not always have the greater VO2 max than Runner B.

During the period in which there are no competitive races, two runners A and B--take part in an experiment measuring their VO2 max,

During these sessions, the runners engaged in moderate aerobic activity(heart rate between 146-154 beats per minute. )

At the end of the sessions, Runner A had a greater VO2 max than Runner B.

Therefore, once the two runners begin identical intensive training--sessions involving over 168 beats per minute-- for the race season, Runner A will continue to have the greater VO2 max, assuming that neither become injured and that both train with similar intensity.


A. Runner A and Runner B had similar VO2 maxes upon entering the study.
(Similar or greater or less does not matter. A must have more VO2 than B. This need not be assumed.)

B. Regarding their VO2 maxes, runners respond equally to intensive training.
(as per the session, VO2 maxes of A>VO2 maxes of B and if they respond equally the VO2 maxes of A continues to be greater than VO2 maxes of B. If we negate this statement, we say Runners do not respond equally to the training, then the result may or may not favor conclusion.)

C. Intensive training involves sessions in which athletes maintain a heartbeat over 168 beats per minute.
(This is mentioned in the argument. Not an assumption)

D. The amount one trains does not influence one’s VO2 max.
(Whether the training does influence Oxygen levels in Postive(supports the conclusion) or negative(weakens) or does not(same as is from the sessions......A>B supports cannot surely support the conclusion.)

E. During the experiment, Runner A did not always have the greater VO2 max than Runner B.
(This weakens if not anything.)

I hope my analysis is right.

Simplify: VO2 measurement between A &B
engaged in conditions: mod activity and 145-154 beats/min
Results : Vo2(A) > Vo2(B)
some missing assumption
Conclusion : if identical training imparted, definitely Vo2(A) > Vo2(B)

Solution : Use negation method.
A) Runner A and Runner B did not have similar VO2 maxes upon entering the study --> This doesn't affects the conclusion in any way .

B) Regarding their VO2 maxes, runners respond differently to intensive training --> IF this was the case, then conclusion falls apart. It might be that due to difference in response, Vo2 B might be greater than Vo2 A. This is the answer.

C) Intensive training doesn't involves sessions in which athletes maintain a heartbeat over 168 beats per minute --> This tells about the the consistency of heartbeat, but in no way it affects the conclusion as to why Vo2(A) should be greater than Vo2(B).

D) The amount one trains influence one’s VO2 max. --> The argument says that “both will train with similar intensity” and will engage in “identical intensive training”.

E) During the experiment, Runner A always have the greater VO2 max than Runner B --> This mentions that there was no affect of identical training conditions, that there was by default some great powers in A. so this too doesn't affect the argument as to why Vo2(A) should be greater than Vo2(B).

Official Explanation:

Premise #1 – A > B (VO2 max) after moderate aerobic activity.

Conclusion: Runners will begin identical intensive training, A will continue to have greater V02 max.

Assumption: The effects of intensive training on the two runners are equivalent to the effects of moderate aerobic training.

(A) directly contradicts what is stated in the passage: Runner A had a greater VO2 max than B.

(B), if it is not true, represents a possible flaw in the conclusion. Say Runner A responds to intensive training differently than Runner B, then it is possible that Runner A will NOT have a greater VO2 max than runner B.

(C) just quantifies what is meant by intensive training. It doesn’t relate to the argument as a whole.

(D) is tempting but remember the argument says that “both will train with similar intensity” and will engage in “identical intensive training”.

(E) is somewhat of a weakener. That is, it points to the possibility that the VO2 max fluctuated throughout the experiment and Runner A just happened to have the higher VO2 max at the very end of training.

An assumption, however, doesn’t weaken the conclusion, but is the very foundation upon which the conclusion rests. That’s why we negate assumptions. In other words, if I pull the foundation out from under the house and that house still stands, then the original assumption was not one that supported the conclusion. However, if I negate the assumption and the conclusion then totally falls apart, we know the original assumption is one upon which the argument depends.

By negating (E), “Runner A always had the greater VO2 max…”, we actually strengthen the conclusion. Therefore, (E) is not the answer.
_________________

everything is in the passage:
all you have to do is read and understand EACH GIVEN word.

During the period in which there are no competitive races, two runners--Runners A and Runners B--take part in an experiment measuring their VO2 max, the volume of oxygen an athlete can use. During these sessions, the runners engaged in moderate aerobic activity, or a sustained heart rate between 146-154 beats per minute. At the end of the sessions, Runner A had a greater VO2 max than Runner B. Therefore, once the two runners begin identical intensive training--sessions involving over 168 beats per minute-- for the race season, Runner A will continue to have the greater VO2 max, assuming that neither become injured and that both train with similar intensity.

During these sessions, the runners engaged in moderate aerobic activity, or a sustained heart rate between 146-154 beats per minute. At the end of the sessions, Runner A had a greater VO2 max than Runner B
Meaning - The experiment conducted involved MODERATE AERBOBIC ACTIVITY.
The result A>B is for moderate activity.

herefore, once the two runners begin identical intensive training--sessions involving over 168 beats per minute-- for the race season, Runner A will continue to have the greater VO2 max, assuming that neither become injured and that both train with similar intensity.
Conclusion- is for INTENSIVE training...

is it possible that A is good at moderate but not at intensive???? YES

so we have to close this gap.
Hence B

Conclusion : Person with higher V02 max in moderate training will again have a higher V02 max in intensive training.

Assumption : Things will remain the same for both the athletes in all training modes.
(For example : The athlete having lower V02 max in moderate training may have a higher V02 max due to maybe a higher metabolism at higher heart rates)

Answer option
(B) : Regarding their VO2 maxes, runners respond equally to intensive training. : Exactly according to our pre-thinking assumption. i.e when moving from one training mode to another, both their bodies will react in similar ways.

(A) : Runner A and Runner B had similar VO2 maxes upon entering the study. : We are not talking about the difference between the V02 max between the 2 athletes.
The argument is about : whether the increase will be in a similar fashion when the training modes are changed.