LSAT Explanation PT 31, S2, Q16: Because addictive drugs are physically harmful,

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following statements, if true, would be the strongest challenge to the author's conclusion? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Weaken question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is E. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's analyze the structure of the argument in the passage. The author argues that because addictive drugs are physically harmful, their use by athletes is never justified. This is a premise. The author then addresses the purists' claim that taking massive doses of nonaddictive drugs like aspirin and vitamins should also be prohibited because they are unnatural. The author refutes this claim by stating that almost everything in sports is unnatural, and none of these unnatural aspects are prohibited. This is another premise. The author concludes that the use of nonaddictive drugs by athletes should not be prohibited, and we should focus on more serious problems that result in unnecessary deaths and injuries.

The conclusion of the argument is that the use of nonaddictive drugs by athletes should not be prohibited. An "Evaluate" question for this argument could be: "Are massive doses of nonaddictive drugs physically harmful?"

The question type of this problem is Weaken, which means we need to find the statement that, if true, would be the strongest challenge to the author's conclusion.

Now, let's discuss each answer choice:

a) Massive doses of aspirin and vitamins enhance athletic performance.

This answer choice might seem tempting, as it suggests a reason why nonaddictive drugs could be prohibited. However, it doesn't directly challenge the author's conclusion because it doesn't address the physical harm aspect. The author's main concern is the physical harm caused by drugs, not their impact on athletic performance.

b) Addictive drugs are just as unnatural as nonaddictive drugs like aspirin and vitamins.

This statement doesn't weaken the author's conclusion, as it doesn't provide any new information or challenge the relationship between the premises and the conclusion. The author already acknowledges that nonaddictive drugs are unnatural but argues that this is not a reason to prohibit them.

c) Unnecessary deaths and injuries occur in other walks of life besides modern sports.

This statement is irrelevant to the argument, as it doesn't address the use of nonaddictive drugs by athletes or their potential harm. It doesn't challenge the author's conclusion.

d) There would be more unnecessary deaths and injuries if it were not for running shoes, boxing gloves, and bodybuilding machines.

This statement, while true, doesn't challenge the author's conclusion. In fact, it supports the author's premise that not all unnatural aspects of sports are harmful and should be prohibited.

e) Taking massive doses of aspirin or vitamins can be physically harmful.

This is the correct answer. If taking massive doses of nonaddictive drugs like aspirin and vitamins can be physically harmful, it directly challenges the author's conclusion that their use should not be prohibited. It introduces a new reason for prohibition, which is consistent with the author's concern about the physical harm caused by drugs.

In conclusion, the correct answer to this Weaken question is answer choice E, as it provides a strong challenge to the author's conclusion by introducing the possibility that nonaddictive drugs can be physically harmful.