PrepTest 114, Section 2, Question 21
So-called "engineered foods," usually in powder or liquid(62 more words not shown)
The argument depends on assuming(5 more words not shown)
- AAn increase in(7 more words not shown)
- BPeople who are(10 more words not shown)
- CIf an engineered(17 more words not shown)
- DConsuming engineered foods(12 more words not shown)
- EGrowth of muscle(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if athletes want something besides stronger muscles?
The argument says these engineered foods stimulate hormones that grow connective tissue rather than muscle mass, and that this doesn't improve muscle strength. Let's accept that limitation. It still doesn't mean the foods offer athletes nothing worth having.
Connective tissue includes things such as tendons and ligaments. Could an athlete value an effect on that tissue even without a gain in muscular strength? For example, if it helped with some other training or injury concern, the athlete might have a reason to consume the food. We haven't established such a benefit, and tissue growth alone doesn't prove one. The point is that the argument hasn't ruled it out.
What we’re looking for
The conclusion tells athletes not to consume these foods. For a necessary assumption, I'd look for a reason that the missing muscle-strength benefit settles that decision. The argument needs to exclude another substantial advantage that could make the foods worth consuming despite that limitation.
Working the answers
- A
The argument doesn't need a general guarantee that greater muscle mass produces greater strength. We're already given the relevant limitation: the growth described here doesn't improve muscle strength. Even if A were true, we'd still have the question whether the foods could help athletes in some other important way. A doesn't supply the assumption behind rejecting them.
- B
The recommendation is about athletes. People who aren't athletes could need strong muscles or connective tissue too without changing this argument. B adds a restriction on a different group that the recommendation doesn't require.
- CCorrect
This rules out another substantial advantage when the food doesn't improve muscle strength. That is the gap between the given limitation and the recommendation to avoid the food.
Suppose the food offered an athlete a substantial benefit unrelated to stronger muscles. Then “It doesn't improve muscle strength” wouldn't, on its own, justify telling the athlete not to consume it. C excludes that possibility. It concerns substantial advantages from these foods; it doesn't claim that muscle growth is the only reason anyone ever eats.
- D
We aren't told that these nutrients can be obtained more easily elsewhere. More fundamentally, the argument isn't based on these foods being unhealthy. It rejects them because they don't provide the muscle-strength benefit discussed. D adds both a comparison with other sources and a health rule the reasoning doesn't require.
- E
This would make connective-tissue growth a requirement for muscle-mass growth to enhance strength. That could give athletes a reason to care about the very effect the author dismisses. It doesn't justify treating that effect as worthless, and it isn't something the argument needs in order to recommend avoiding the foods.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.