The sports analyst cites genetic characteristics as the prime reason for the success of tennis among young players before they reach 20 yrs.
But, the Tennis coach contradicts it by mentioning skill and experience as reasons to the success of tennis sport among young players in country D.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the tennis coach's objection to the analyst's claim?
(A) The winner of last year's international tennis tour was a player from Country B.
This doesn’t matter to the performances of country D. May be country D could have been the runner up. More importantly the skill and experience is not supported here. Hence out of scope.
(B) The physique that a tennis player is born with is an extremely important factor that can affect that player's success as a professional.
Here it’s mentioned of the genetic trait - physique being born, which is usually inherited or may be attributed to rich nutritional diet. Hence it doesn’t strengthen coach’s statement. Out of scope.
(C) In Country D's education, tennis is a compulsory activity that is taught to students through all twelve years of their formal education.
This is the CORRECT ANSWER. As the statement aligns in line with the coach’s view. The children are trained from childhood to develop them as budding champions. So it’s the skill that is acquired over a period of time.
(D) In the last Olympic Games, Country D did not win medals in any other discipline other than tennis.
This neither supports analysts view or coach’s opinion. Hence out of scope.
(E) Every year, 2% of Country D's tennis professionals are accused of using illegal substances to enhance their performance.
It show cases a different perspective altogether, which is substance abuse. It’s neither genetically acquired or trained upon. Moreover, this statement has no evidence to corroborate it. Hence out of scope. Irrelevant option.
Answer: C