PrepTest 152, Section 4, Question 13
Columnist: Banning performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) from sports(60 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- ASpectators would not(10 more words not shown)
- BPEDs would not(9 more words not shown)
- CAthletes do not(14 more words not shown)
- DAthletes currently using(8 more words not shown)
- EUsing PEDs at(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
People might break a ban. Does that mean the activity should be allowed?
That reasoning is too quick. We wouldn't automatically legalize theft just because some people keep stealing. A rule can still serve a purpose even when it doesn't stop every violation. So I'd want more than the claim that determined athletes will keep using performance-enhancing drugs.
The columnist adds a reason: medical supervision would keep doses safe and remove the health risks. Accept that claim for the argument. Are health risks the only concern? What about an athlete who doesn't want to take the drugs but feels pressured to do so because everyone competing against them does? We might still have questions about what kind of competition the policy creates.
What we’re looking for
For a required assumption, my initial thoughts concern those gaps: why the failure of a ban supports permission, or why resolving the health concern is enough to recommend the policy. Let's see what the argument actually needs.
Working the answers
- A
The policy could still be recommended even if some spectators lost respect for the athletes. The columnist's case concerns competitive incentives and safe use, not a requirement that spectators retain exactly the same opinion. A possible drawback is not automatically something the argument assumes away completely.
- B
The columnist doesn't need the drugs to improve every athlete by the same amount. Unequal improvements could coexist with the claim that supervised permission is preferable to an ineffective ban. The argument hasn't made perfect equality of competitive effects a condition of allowing the drugs.
- C
Some athletes could mistakenly believe an ineffective drug helps them. That doesn't undo the argument about drugs that actually provide a large advantage. The policy doesn't depend on every athlete being right about every substance's performance benefits.
- D
Some athletes might already find doctors willing to prescribe these drugs. That doesn't prevent the columnist from recommending that permission be tied to medical supervision. We don't need every current user to be unable to find a doctor for the proposal to make sense.
- ECorrect
This reveals a problem I hadn't addressed in my initial predictions: the same incentive used to dismiss the ban could undermine the proposed safety rule.
The columnist says top athletes will do whatever it takes to get a big competitive advantage. If unsafe doses offer another big advantage beyond safe doses, those athletes would have a reason to exceed their doctors' limits. Merely permitting supervised, safe use wouldn't remove the incentive to take dangerous amounts. E rules out that additional advantage. The argument needs it to defend the proposed safe-dose policy using the very description of athletes' behavior it has given us.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.