PrepTest 119, Section 2, Question 25
Studies have shown that specialty sports foods contain(44 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(6 more words not shown)
- ASports foods are(5 more words not shown)
- BMany grocery stores(6 more words not shown)
- CSports foods are(12 more words not shown)
- DRegular foods contain(11 more words not shown)
- ESports foods can(5 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The same nutrients for two or three times the price? I can see why the author suspects marketing. If ordinary food gives athletes the same nutrition, the extra price needs some explanation.
But why must expensive advertising campaigns explain it? What if an athlete sees a sports label in a store and buys the product without ever seeing an ad? The author moves from “no nutritional advantage” to “very few athletes would buy this without expensive advertising.” Those aren't the same claim.
What we’re looking for
For a weakener, I'd look for another reason athletes would buy sports foods. My first thought is the label on the shelf, but the broader point is that advertising may not be doing all the work the author assigns it. We need a fact that gives athletes a reason to pay the higher price even without those campaigns.
Working the answers
- A
Famous athletes using a product doesn't tell us why they use it or how other athletes learn about that use. They could themselves be responding to advertising, and their endorsements could be part of the campaigns. A doesn't establish a reason purchases would continue without expensive advertising.
- B
This is close to the picture of seeing the product on a grocery shelf. But being available alongside ordinary foods doesn't explain why an athlete would choose the more expensive option. We would have to add the claim that its placement or label actually motivates purchases. B gives us access to the product, not that missing reason to buy it.
- CCorrect
Convenience is a real difference even when nutrition is identical. An athlete can carry and consume these foods more easily during training or competition. That can give the athlete a reason to pay more without being persuaded by an expensive campaign.
Think about paying for food delivery. The food needn't become more nutritious when someone brings it to your door; you're paying for convenience. Here, the benefit is having food that's easier to use during the activity. The author's comparison of nutrients and price overlooks that practical value.
This takes a different route from the label prediction, but it answers the same objection: there can be a reason to choose sports foods apart from the advertising.
- D
Ordinary foods supplying useful vitamins and minerals fits the premise that athletes can get their nutrition from regular food. It doesn't explain why they would pay more for sports foods without advertising. Saying that ordinary food is good for athletes leaves the author's inference untouched.
- E
Nutritionally replacing a regular meal doesn't explain the extra price. The argument already treats the foods as nutritionally equivalent. We still need a reason an athlete would choose the more expensive substitute, and E supplies no advantage beyond what we already knew.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.