PrepTest 113, Section 3, Question 16
Because addictive drugs are physically harmful, their use(98 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(12 more words not shown)
- AMassive doses of(6 more words not shown)
- BAddictive drugs are(10 more words not shown)
- CUnnecessary deaths and(10 more words not shown)
- DThere would be(17 more words not shown)
- ETaking massive doses(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Not addictive doesn't mean harmless.
The author starts by treating physical harm as a reason to reject athletes' drug use. Someone might question how to weigh health against athletic performance, but within this argument, harm clearly matters. Then the purists give a different reason for banning other drugs: those drugs are unnatural. I agree with the author's hesitation about that reason. A manufactured shoe or a padded glove isn't automatically bad just because it doesn't occur in nature.
But rejecting that particular reason doesn't settle whether athletes should use massive doses of these drugs. Could the doses themselves cause harm? If so, the author would need to confront the very concern used against addictive drugs. Saying other sports problems deserve attention wouldn't make this problem disappear.
What we’re looking for
For the weakener, I'd look for evidence of that danger. The conclusion permits nonaddictive drugs, and the objection is that lack of addiction may leave other serious downsides.
Working the answers
- A
Better performance isn't identified as a reason to ban these drugs. We would need an additional concern about fairness or some other drawback to turn this enhancement into an objection. The argument focuses on harm and unnaturalness, so a performance benefit alone doesn't challenge its conclusion.
- B
The author doesn't reject addictive drugs because they are unnatural; the opening reason is that they are physically harmful. Showing that the two groups are equally unnatural therefore doesn't bring nonaddictive drugs under that stated reason for rejection. It compares them on the feature the author argues isn't enough.
- C
Injuries outside sports don't establish whether athletes' use of these drugs should be allowed. The existence of other problems doesn't remove or identify a problem with the drug use being defended. C leaves the relevant comparison untouched.
- D
This supplies a possible benefit of the equipment used as examples. It helps us see why something unnatural might still be worth allowing. But it doesn't tell us whether massive doses of nonaddictive drugs are harmful. A reason to keep the shoes or gloves isn't an objection to the author's conclusion about the drugs.
- ECorrect
These doses can be physically harmful. That gives us the concern we wanted: the drugs' nonaddictive status doesn't spare athletes from the kind of harm the author treats seriously.
The equipment examples challenge a ban based simply on unnaturalness. They don't answer a ban based on physical danger. E supplies that different reason to question allowing the drugs. It needn't prove that every dose harms every athlete; it undermines the attempt to dismiss this use as something we shouldn't prohibit.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.