Quote:
When the heart is under duress, it releases proteins known as troponins into the bloodstream. In elite marathoners and cyclists, troponin levels become so elevated after a race that they are indistinguishable from those observed in patients who have recently suffered a heart attack. Despite the benefits of exercise, it is evident that too much running or cycling, even for one day, has a detrimental effect on health.
Which of the following would be most useful to determine to evaluate the argument?
(A) Whether non-elite runners and cyclists, after prolonged exercise, have more troponin in their bloodstream than do elite athletes.
(B) How long the body takes, on average, to restore elevated troponin levels to normal.
(C) Whether the body produces any other substances after extended periods of exercise that may be harmful.
(D) Whether the body sustains irreparable damage as a result of a long-distance run or bicycle ride.
(E) Whether other forms of prolonged cardiovascular exercise, such as swimming, also lead to elevated levels of troponin in the body.
Hello, everyone. I thought it would be fun to weigh in on a sports-related question, even if the sports deviate from our World Cup theme. There are only three lines in the passage, and they follow a typical development.
- The first line provides factual information: the heart releases… troponins when under duress
- Elite marathoners and cyclists display elevated levels of troponin after an event that are comparable to levels of troponin found in recent heart attack patients
- The argument claims that it is evident that too much running or cycling, even for one day, has a detrimental effect on health
My mind gravitates to a correlation/causation relationship, but remember, our goal is to
evaluate the argument, not weaken it. What would help us better weigh the pros and cons of the argument presented?
Quote:
(A) Whether non-elite runners and cyclists, after prolonged exercise, have more troponin in their bloodstream than do elite athletes.
It can be tempting to attack the first part, since it mentions
non-elite athletes, but then a comparison follows with elite athletes. The problem is that
more troponin does not offer any insight into whether the levels of troponin actually observed in post-race elite endurance athletes have an overall
detrimental effect on health. If that could be established, and if the information in this answer choice could be ascertained, then the comparison would be more meaningful.
Quote:
(B) How long the body takes, on average, to restore elevated troponin levels to normal.
A heart attack survivor would probably tell you that it only takes a moment for your entire life to flash before your eyes. The issue is whether these
elevated troponin levels contribute to heart attacks or to negative effects on health in general. The average duration for the body to clear out debris from the bloodstream is not a relevant concern.
Quote:
(C) Whether the body produces any other substances after extended periods of exercise that may be harmful.
If you want to make this answer choice work, you will find a way to jam that square peg into a round hole. But objectively, we are putting together
other substances (not troponin) and another unknown,
may be harmful. This is a case in which vague language is not what we want. It would be much more useful, for instance, to know whether there
was some confounding variable in another particular substance.
Quote:
(D) Whether the body sustains irreparable damage as a result of a long-distance run or bicycle ride.
Remember the exact words of the argument:
too much running or cycling, even for one day, has a detrimental effect on health. If the body did sustain
irreparable damage after a long run or bicycle ride, then
too much running or cycling, even for one day looks a lot more reasonable; if, on the other hand, the body could repair the damage, the argument would look out of place. This is just what we want in our answer choice.
Quote:
(E) Whether other forms of prolonged cardiovascular exercise, such as swimming, also lead to elevated levels of troponin in the body.
There are two easy targets here. The first is that
cardiovascular exercise itself is not being implicated in the argument, just running and cycling. Sure, a stronger case could be made for the argument if these
other forms of exercise did not produce the same effects in athletes, but that argument still might not be
evident. Then, the passage outlines a specific range of
elevated levels of troponin in the body, levels consistent with those observed in recent heart attack patients, so merely
elevated levels would not provide sufficiently detailed information—we would want to know just how elevated those troponin levels proved to be.
Whenever there is an argument, do your best not to lose sight of just what it is saying. Once associative reasoning takes over, you can easily be sidetracked and end up picking an answer that is one or two steps removed from what the linear logic of the passage dictates.
Good luck with your studies.
- Andrew
close
13 Jul 2022, 08:00
47%
(02:00)
wrong 
