PrepTest 111, Section 1, Question 10
Although marathons are 26.2 miles (42.2 kilometers) long(36 more words not shown)
Each of the following, if(14 more words not shown)
- AThe longer the(20 more words not shown)
- BThe longer the(17 more words not shown)
- CThe longer the(16 more words not shown)
- DRunners who train(13 more words not shown)
- ERunners who train(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
More training could leave you worn out for the race.
A marathon lasts more than two hours even for top runners, so training for only 90 minutes might initially seem insufficient. But the goal is to perform well on race day, not to maximize the time spent running every day. If longer daily sessions leave athletes depleted or unable to recover, the extra work could hurt their eventual performance.
Imagine a student taking a full practice test every day and arriving at the real exam exhausted. The extra practice would not automatically outweigh that cost. We can consider the same possibility here without knowing the details of marathon training.
What we’re looking for
Why do the runners with shorter daily sessions perform better, despite the length of the race? The question asks for the exception among possible explanations. Four choices will help answer that question; we select the one that doesn't. I'm expecting costs of the longer sessions, but I need to leave room for explanations other than the particular kind of exhaustion I first imagined.
Working the answers
- A
Air pollution wasn't my initial prediction, but its adverse health effects provide another route from more time running to worse performance. If longer sessions increase those health risks, that helps explain why shorter sessions could produce better results. Because this contributes to the explanation, it isn't the exception.
- BCorrect
This gives a benefit of running longer: better adjustment to different race lengths. That doesn't explain why the athletes training for less time perform better in marathons. If anything, it makes longer sessions sound useful.
We aren't deciding whether the benefit is real or whether runners should never train longer. We are identifying the one fact that fails to help explain this reported advantage for the shorter sessions. B points toward an advantage for the other group.
- C
More frequent joint injuries would interfere with the longer-session runners' overall training. They could spend more time on individual runs yet suffer setbacks that leave them less prepared. That is a cost of the extra running that helps explain the outcome, so eliminate C.
- D
Physical fatigue isn't the only possible cost. Boredom and reduced motivation could also make the longer-session runners perform worse. D gives that psychological route to the result, much like the possibility of burning out through excessive practice. It contributes to an explanation rather than serving as the exception.
- E
This closely matches the original thought about energy. The longer sessions use up reserves the runners would need for the marathon itself, leaving them less energy when performance matters. That directly helps explain why less daily running can lead to a better race result, so E isn't our answer.
More Paradox questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Paradox questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.