Logical Reasoning

PT109 · S1 · Q3 Juan: Unlike the ancient Olympic

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Juan: Unlike the ancient Olympic games on which they are based, the modern Olympics include professional as well as amateur athletes.

Juan's Conclusion (hence)

Having pro athletes violates the spirit of fairness.

Juan's Intermediate Conclusion

It's unlikely that amateurs will offer a serious challenge to any pros they face in their events.

Juan's Premise (since)

Amateurs rarely have the financial resources available to pros.

Evaluating Michiko's Response

She says pros should be able to compete. So she seems to disagree with Juan's conclusion. Does she disagree with his premise or intermediate conclusion? Not really. She's just saying that the point of the Olympics is to showcase the best, so if pros have more resources and that makes them dominate amateurs, so be it. They're the best; we wanna showcase the best; so pros should be at the Olympics.

Goal

Let's find an answer centered on whether or not pros should be allowed to compete at the Olympics.

Since that disagreement was so obvious and explicit, the answer will probably get at the underlying premises. Juan thinks they shouldn't, because of fairness concerns. Michiko thinks they should, because of concerns about showcasing the world's best.

3.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the point at issue between Juan and Michiko?

  1. Correct

    whether the participation of both

    Why this is right

    This is our best coded version of "should pros be allowed to compete at the Olympics". Juan would say, "No, it's not in accord with the ideal of fairness." Michiko would say, "Yes, it's in accord with the idea of showcasing the world's finest athletes."

    Skill tested: Agree/Disagree · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    95% picked this

  2. whether both amateur and professional

    Nobody Addresses

    Juan's first sentence would say, "no, the ancient games did not have both amateurs and pros". But Michiko is never saying, "yes, they did. The ancient games had amateurs and pros!"

    3% picked this

  3. whether the athletes who compete

    Both Agree

    Michiko explicitly says the idea of the modern Olympics is to showcase the world's finest, so she would presumably agree. But Juan doesn't ever argue that the athletes who compete are NOT the world's finest.

    1% picked this

  4. whether any amateur athletes have

    Both Agree

    It's a very weak claim to say that "at least some amateur athletes have the same resources available to pros". Even Juan allows for that possibility by saying that amateurs rarely have the financial or material resources of professionals. Neither person is ever saying "amateur athletes never have the same resources as pros".

    1% picked this

  5. whether governments sponsor professional as

    Nobody Addresses

    Government sponsorship of professional athletes is not mentioned by either speaker. The dispute is about pros and amateurs competing together, not about who funds them.

    0% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free