Confused between Option B and C and picked the wrong one. Please help.

Posted from my mobile device

We have been told following:
1. Training Time plays important role to 'maintain fitness level'
2. Playing a large no. of tournaments (+) at a stretch = i) Reduces training time ==> a) hampers fitness and b) prone to injuries.
3. However, avg. time play time = 5-6 hours/ day
4. Thus, limiting no. of matches is not required

If you observe the link between point 3 and poin 4 above is missing.
To connect the dots - training keeps you maintained. Many no. of matches may reduce your training time and hence may not keep you maintained. But play time is 5-6 hrs/ day thus, you can play any no. of matches.

We need an answer choice that suggests - despite playing many no. of matches, your training time will not be reduced and hence you will maintain the fitness.

Option B is hence correct answer choice.

Analysis of other options:
Retired cricketers have been agitating for limits on the number of tournaments played at a stretch by a cricketer aged 28-38. It is well known that training time plays a vital role in maintaining fitness levels. They argue that playing a large number of tournaments at a stretch reduces the cricketers’ training time, hampering their fitness levels and making them prone to injuries. However, the average time a cricketer spends playing typically does not exceed 5-6 hours per day. Therefore, limiting the number of tournaments played at a stretch is not really required.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?


(A) The proportion of serious injuries incurred by a cricketer is more dependent on the number of tournaments played by the cricketer than on the spacing between tournaments.
Why are we talking about serious injuries? question stem speaks only on 'prone to injuries'. Additionally, answer choice is discussing injuries are dependent more on No. of Tournaments than during space between touraments. Why are we even doing this comparison? Absolutely irrelevant!

(B) The fitness program and the training time that a player puts in every day are enough to ensure that fitness is maintained for any number of matches played by him.
Correct

(C) Even while playing a tournament and accounting for other non-professional commitments, a cricketer still has ample time to train and rest to maintain if not enhance his fitness level.
We understand that while playing a tournament cricketer has ample time to train and rest to maintain but can he still play any number of matches? if so, we are questioning the fact stated in the argument that 'Playing a large no. of tournaments (+) at a stretch = i) Reduces training time ==> a) hampers fitness and b) prone to injuries.'
Ideally, we should state something that can connect both - maintenance of fitness and thereby possiblity to play any no. of matches.
Please also note that this option is discussing only about a single trounament. We need an answer that suggest - fitness can be maintained despite playing any number of tournaments.

(D) A player will be able to significantly reduce the likelihood of injuries once an upper limit is put on the number of matches he can play.
There are 2 aims: 1. maintain fitness and 2. reduce/ eliminate enjuries. This option discusses only about reducing of injuries. It is so obvious that if player plays less no. of games, probability of injury logically and mathematically will reduce. This option does not quotes anything about maintaining fitness despite playing any no. of matches.

(E) While not playing cricket tournaments, most cricketers will choose to spend a good proportion of the time they have on enhancing their fitness levels.
Are we bothered what cricketers do when they are off-tournament? Additionally, why are we speaking about ENHANCING fitness?
We need Maintenance of Fitness!