Original Argument Breakdown:
Conclusion:
Juliette is likely a world-class figure skater.
Premises:
1. Most world-class figure skaters started skating very young.
2. It’s almost impossible to become world-class without starting young.
3. Most people who are not world-class started later.
Reasoning Pattern:
This is an argument by characteristic — it identifies a necessary condition (starting young) for achieving a certain status (being world-class) and then infers probability (not certainty) from that condition being met.
Formally:
Trait X is common among group A (experts).
Trait X is rare in non-A.
Subject has trait X → So subject is likely in group A.
Option (B) Analysis:
Diana devotes over 20 hours a week to playing golf, as do most professional golfers. It is difficult to become a professional golfer playing any less than 20 hours a week. So Diana is probably a professional golfer.
1. Trait: Playing >20 hours/week = necessary (or close to it) to become a pro.
2. Most pros do it; non-pros likely don't.
3. Diana has this trait.
So she’s probably a pro golfer.
This matches the original structure exactly:
1. Establishes a necessary condition,
2. Points out its rarity outside the target group,
3. Concludes probability, not certainty.
Option (E) Analysis:
Yvette is most definitely a champion swimmer. After all, she can hold her breath for almost two minutes and she has mastered all the main strokes. Very few people possess both these characteristics. In fact, only champion swimmers have both.
1. Here, it says only champion swimmers have both traits.
2. That means the traits are presented as sufficient for being a champion swimmer.
3. Then it concludes with certainty: “Yvette is most definitely a champion swimmer.”
This does not match the original:
The original argument argues from a necessary condition to a probable conclusion.
(E) argues from a sufficient condition to a certain conclusion.