PrepTest 113, Section 3, Question 17
Because addictive drugs are physically harmful, their use(98 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(7 more words not shown)
- AThe fact that(11 more words not shown)
- BThere is nothing(9 more words not shown)
- CThe use of(12 more words not shown)
- DSome of the(17 more words not shown)
- EThe use of(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Cleats aren't part of a bare foot, but wearing them isn't the same activity as taking a drug. That makes me cautious about how much the equipment comparison can establish.
We need to keep the two objections separate. The author rejects addictive drugs because they are harmful. The purists reject massive doses of nonaddictive drugs because they are unnatural. The author responds to that second reason with examples of unnatural equipment that isn't prohibited on that basis.
What we’re looking for
I still want to ask about possible harm from the drugs being defended. Perhaps the author has answered the purists' objection without answering every objection. But this question asks what can be inferred from the passage. We need to identify a position the author actually supports, even if we're unconvinced by the final recommendation.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The author doesn't think being unnatural is enough to justify a ban. That is the point of the running shoes, boxing gloves and exercise machines: their unnaturalness isn't treated as a sufficient reason to prohibit them. The author uses that comparison to reject the purists' stated reason for banning the nonaddictive drugs.
This doesn't amount to saying every unnatural thing is safe. A concerns the adequacy of one reason for a ban, not the absence of every other reason.
- B
The author doesn't defend the drugs by saying they are natural. The response instead treats the category of unnatural things as broad enough to include familiar equipment. B changes the defense from 'that reason isn't enough' to 'the description doesn't apply.' Those are different claims.
- C
This attaches the wrong reason to the author's rejection of addictive drugs. Their use is said to be unjustified because they are physically harmful. C replaces harm with unnaturalness, even though the rest of the passage attacks using unnaturalness as the decisive objection.
- D
The author says addictive drugs are harmful and mentions unnecessary deaths and injuries in sports. But the passage doesn't connect those particular deaths and injuries to athletes' use of addictive drugs. That connection might be true; it isn't established merely by mentioning both matters.
- E
The author treats the dispute about nonaddictive drugs as less important than the serious problems causing deaths and injuries. E instead compares addictive drugs with injuries. We aren't given that ranking. Keep the two drug categories separate when deciding which comparison the passage supports.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.