Logical Reasoning

PT112 · S3 · Q3 Muscular strength is a limited resource

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

Muscular strength is a limited resource, and athletic techniques help to use this resource efficiently.

Conclusion

A requirement for an athlete to become a champion is a superior mastery of athletic techniques.

Evidence

Muscular strength is a limited resource. Athletic techniques help use it efficiently. Top athletes don't differ much from each other in muscular strength.

Evaluate

The conclusion is signaled by "it follows that." Everything that comes before is the support: muscular strength is the limit, technique is what efficiently uses it, and top athletes are roughly equal in strength — so the differentiator at the championship level must be technique. The main point is the championship-requirement claim.

Goal

Find the answer that says, in some form: an athlete must have superior mastery of athletic techniques to become a champion.

3.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the conclusion of the argument?

  1. Only champion athletes have a

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This claims that only champions have superior technique mastery. The argument's claim runs the other direction — superior technique is required for being a champion (i.e., champions all have it), but it doesn't say only champions have it. Plenty of non-champions might also have superior technique. This reverses the relationship.

    5% picked this

  2. Superior muscular strength is a

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This says superior strength is required to become a champion. The argument runs the opposite way — top athletes don't differ much in strength, so strength isn't what differentiates champions. The differentiator is technique. (B) misidentifies the requirement.

    15% picked this

  3. Correct

    No athlete can become a

    Why this is right

    This restates the conclusion. The argument said "a requirement for an athlete to become a champion is a superior mastery of athletic techniques." (C) says "no athlete can become a champion without a superior mastery of athletic techniques." Logically equivalent — both express that technique mastery is necessary for championship status.

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

    71% picked this

  4. The differences in muscular strength

    Bad Conclusion Match

    "Top athletes don't differ greatly in muscular strength" is a premise — one of the supporting facts that leads to the conclusion. It's not the conclusion itself. The author isn't arguing for this claim; it's offered as evidence for the technique-mastery requirement.

    1% picked this

  5. Athletic techniques help athletes use

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This is also a premise — a stated fact about what techniques do (help use a limited resource efficiently). It's offered as evidence en route to the conclusion, not the conclusion itself. The conclusion is the championship-requirement claim.

    9% 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