Stimulus: B; P; C/P
So we’re looking for a premise; hence, the premise indicator (since) before the boldface. The way the this premise is substantiating the conclusion is by hitting on the point of absorption compared to that of volume/quantity of oxygen (i.e., the extra oxygen this new drink is selling).
A. This doesn’t hit the point about the difference mentioned above. Just states a fact that the water isn’t necessary, without any support.
B. Okay so this says that you can increase what you take in (i.e., more quantity)
a. This would weaken the argument, if anything
b. We want to look for something that shows why an increase of oxygen won’t do anything to improve physical performance
C. Okay the new water with more oxygen (essentially in physical form) wouldn’t absorption (of oxygen) by the muscles if they ONLY way to get oxygen is…through the lunges
a. This shows why absorption won’t be affect with an increase of volume/quantity, so this is probs the answer
D. This doesn’t hit on the absorption aspect at all
a. The way the bold is utilized is to show WHY the water is useless in imprvoign physical performance; more specifically, it states that the blood CANNOT absorb any more oxygen into the muscle cells. Saying that lack of oxygen isn’t the only factor limiting the aforementioned physical performance has no relevance to the way in which the bold is used.
b. ALSO…first sentence in the stimulus – “One of the limiting factors in…is the amount of oxygen that is absorbed by the muscles…”
i. This already alludes to the point that lack of oxygen is a limiting factor
ii. Keep in mind that this isn’t necessarily the same thing as the stimulus’ statement; the stimulus states that the amount of oxygen that is ABSORBED by the muscle is a limiting factor
iii. This answer merely states that lack of oxygen is not the only limiting factor
E. This doesn’t hit on the absorption aspect at all
a. We know nothing about the tap water; no need for real world assumptions and going down a made up story route to fit the bill