Because addictive drugs are physically harmful, their use by athletes is never justified. Purists, however, claim that taking massive doses of even such nonaddictive drugs as aspirin and vitamins before competing should also be prohibited because they are unnatural. This is ridiculous; almost everything in sports is unnatural, from high-tech running shoes to padded boxing gloves to highly-specialized bodybuilding machines. Yet, none of these is prohibited on the basis of its being unnatural. Furthermore, we should be attending to far more serious problems that plague modern sports and result in unnecessary deaths and injuries. Therefore, the use of nonaddictive drugs by athletes should not be prohibited.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that athletes’ use of nonaddictive drugs should not be banned. As support, the author claims that almost everything in sports is unnatural (and that many things are permitted despite being unnatural). The author also says that focus should be on more serious issues in sports that result in deaths and injuries instead of focusing on banning nonaddictive drugs because they are unnatural.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that nonaddictive drugs are not physically harmful and do not result in injury or death. Additionally, the author just rejects one reason to ban nonaddictive drugs, then claims that nonaddictive drugs should not be banned. The most that the author has done is demonstrate that nonaddictive drugs should not be banned on the basis of being unnatural; there could be other reasons why nonaddictive drugs should be banned.

A
Massive doses of aspirin and vitamins enhance athletic performance.
The examples of tools given by the author (high-tech running shoes and specialized machines) also enhance athletic performance. The author isn’t saying that things that enhance athletic performance should be banned; the author is just saying that nonaddictive drugs shouldn’t be banned.
B
Addictive drugs are just as unnatural as nonaddictive drugs like aspirin and vitamins.
The author believes that addictive drugs should be banned. But this is because they are physically harmful, not because they are unnatural. Also, the argument concerns nonaddictive drugs, so additional information about addictive drugs does not weaken the argument.
C
Unnecessary deaths and injuries occur in other walks of life besides modern sports.
The argument is about whether or not nonaddictive drugs should be banned in sports; risk of death or injury in other areas of life is completely irrelevant to the specific claims made in this argument.
D
There would be more unnecessary deaths and injuries if it were not for running shoes, boxing gloves, and bodybuilding machines.
(D) demonstrates some benefits of other unnatural tools used in sports; this does not weaken the argument. This actually gives a reason that some unnatural things have a positive role in sports.
E
Taking massive doses of aspirin or vitamins can be physically harmful.
The author accepts that addictive drugs are banned because they are physically harmful; there is no information given on the physical impacts of nonaddictive drugs. If nonaddictive drugs are physically harmful, the argument that they shouldn’t be banned is much weaker.

54 comments

A rise in the percentage of all 18-year-olds who were recruited by the armed services of a small republic between 1980 and 1986 correlates with a rise in the percentage of young people who dropped out of high school in that republic. Since 18-year-olds in the republic are generally either high school graduates or high school dropouts, the correlation leads to the conclusion that the republic’s recruitment rates for 18-year-olds depend substantially on recruitment rates for high school dropouts.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that a small republic’s military recruitment rate for 18-year-olds is largely dependent on the recruitment rate for high school dropouts. This hypothesis is based on an observed correlation over 6 years: as the proportion of high school dropouts increased, so did the recruitment rate for 18-year-olds. Additionally, 18-year-olds in the republic are usually either high school graduates or dropouts.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that just because the proportion of dropouts and the recruitment rate for 18-year-olds increased at the same time, most 18-year-old military recruits are dropouts. In other words, the author assumes that the correlation was caused by the military being able to recruit more dropouts, and that they weren’t instead recruiting more graduates.

A
A larger number of 18-year-old high school graduates were recruited for the republic’s armed services in 1986 than in 1980.
This does not weaken the argument, which is about proportions and rates, not about absolute numbers. The number of 18-year-old graduate recruits increasing implies nothing about their recruitment rate, which could have increased, decreased, or stayed the same.
B
Many of the high-technology systems used by the republic’s armed services can be operated only by individuals who have completed a high school education.
This does not weaken the argument because who is able to operate military technology is unrelated to who the military is able to recruit. We also don’t know how many people are needed to operate the tech: maybe it’s just a few, so they could still mostly recruit dropouts.
C
Between 1980 and 1986 the percentage of high school graduates among 18-year-olds recruited in the republic rose sharply.
This weakens the argument, because it rebuts the author’s assumption that the observed correlation implied a causal link. This instead shows us that the increased recruitment rate was not dependent on recruiting more dropouts, but rather more graduates.
D
Personnel of the republic’s armed services are strongly encouraged to finish their high school education.
This does not weaken the argument, because the domain of the argument is limited to who the republic’s military is recruiting. Whatever education people pursue after they have already been recruited is irrelevant.
E
The proportion of recruits who had completed at least two years of college education was greater in 1986 than in 1980.
This does not weaken the argument, because the argument is purely about 18-year-old recruits, who we already know are usually either high school graduates or high school dropouts. Recruits who join later, after several years of college, are outside the argument’s domain.

93 comments

Science journalist: Brown dwarfs are celestial objects with more mass than planets but less mass than stars. They are identified by their mass and whether or not lithium is present in their atmospheres. Stars at least as massive as the Sun have lithium remaining in their atmospheres because the mixing of elements in their internal nuclear furnaces is incomplete. Stars with less mass than the Sun have no lithium because the element has been fully mixed into their nuclear furnaces and consumed. A brown dwarf does not have a fully functional nuclear furnace and so its lithium cannot be consumed.

Summary

Brown dwarfs are more massive than planets but less massive than stars. They are identified by their mass and whether or not lithium is present in their atmospheres. A brown dwarf’s lithium cannot be consumed because they do not have a functional nuclear furnace.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

If a celestial object does not have lithium in its atmosphere, then it is not a brown dwarf.

A
Any celestial object without lithium in its atmosphere is a star with less mass than the Sun.

This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus that any celestial object without lithium must be a star. We only know from the stimulus that some stars do have lithium in their atmospheres.

B
Any celestial object with lithium in its atmosphere has a nuclear furnace that has incompletely mixed the object’s elements.

This answer is unsupported. We know that this is true of stars at least as massive as the sun, but saying this is true of any celestial object is too strong.

C
No celestial object that has no lithium in its atmosphere is a brown dwarf.

This answer is strongly supported. We know that brown dwarf’s must have lithium in their atmospheres because it cannot be consumed by a nuclear furnace.

D
No celestial object with lithium in its atmosphere has less mass than the Sun.

This answer is unsupported. This is the reverse relationship from the stimulus. The stimulus tells us that if a star is at least as massive as the sun, then there is lithium in that star’s atmosphere.

E
No celestial object less massive than a brown dwarf has lithium in its atmosphere.

This answer is unsupported. We don’t know anything about celestial objects with less mass than brown dwarfs from the stimulus. The stimulus is limited to brown dwarfs and celestial objects with greater mass.


207 comments