PrepTest 109, Section 3, Question 23
Maria won this year's local sailboat race by(20 more words not shown)
The conclusion follows logically if(7 more words not shown)
- ASue did not(6 more words not shown)
- BIf Maria trained(7 more words not shown)
- CMaria could beat(8 more words not shown)
- DIf Sue trained(7 more words not shown)
- ESue is usually(6 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maria won. Why does that mean she trained hard?
Sue's four previous wins make Maria's victory impressive, but they don't tell us how Maria prepared. Maybe Maria is exceptionally talented. Maybe Sue had an injury or simply performed badly this time. Think of an unusually gifted athlete beating a much weaker opponent: the result alone wouldn't tell us how hard the winner trained.
What we’re looking for
We aren't denying that Maria trained hard. We need evidence for that claim. The question asks us to add an assumption that makes it follow, so look for a rule connecting what we know with what we want to prove. What we know is that Maria beat a four-time winner. What we need is that doing so required her to train hard.
Working the answers
- A
Training harder than Sue isn't necessarily training hard. Suppose Sue barely practiced and Maria practiced only a little more. Maria would have trained harder than Sue without putting in what we would call hard training. A gives a comparison, not the absolute claim the conclusion needs.
- B
This starts with hard training and tells us it would produce a win. But we don't start with hard training; that's what we're trying to establish. We start with the win.
Maria might win after hard training, and she might also win through talent or Sue's poor performance. B doesn't rule out those other routes. It gives one way to win without making that way the only possibility.
- CCorrect
Maria can beat a four-time winner only if she trained hard. Sue is a four-time winner, and Maria beat her. Under C's rule, that result could not happen without the training. The established race result therefore proves the conclusion once we add this requirement.
- D
This rule concerns Sue's training. Given that Sue lost, it could tell us she hadn't trained hard under the stated rule. But Sue's lack of hard training wouldn't prove that Maria trained hard. Both might have prepared poorly, with Maria still winning. We need the connection to Maria's preparation.
- E
Usually faster isn't always faster. Even if Sue normally wins, Maria could beat her on an unusual day because Sue struggled, Maria had favorable conditions, or some other factor changed. E makes the result more surprising without establishing hard training as its explanation.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.