Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT113 S3 Q16 Explanation

Because addictive drugs are physically harmful

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

TopicsWeaken

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Because addictive drugs are physically harmful, their use by athletes is never justified. Purists, however, claim that taking massive doses of even such nonaddictive drugs as aspirin and vitamins before competing should also be prohibited because they are unnatural. This is ridiculous; almost everything in sports is unnatural, from high-tech running shoes unnecessary deaths and injuries. Therefore, the use of nonaddictive drugs by athletes should not be prohibited.

What this question is testing

Weaken

Your task

Find the choice that makes the argument's conclusion less likely to be true.

Common trap

Answers that look negative but attack a claim the argument never relied on.

Winning move

Find the assumption the argument depends on, then pick the choice that undermines it.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
16.

Which one of the following statements, if true, would be the strongest challenge to

Answer choices

  1. Unclear Impact12% picked this

    Massive doses of aspirin and vitamins enhance

    One might cite enhanced performance as a reason we SHOULD let athletes use nonaddictive drugs (others might cite it as a reason we shouldn't, because it would give an unfair non-sporting advantage to the athletes willing to take these drugs).

  2. Irrelevant Comparison6% picked this

    Addictive drugs are just as unnatural as nonaddictive drugs like aspirin

    We know that all drugs in this conversation are unnatural. What we'd like to know is whether nonaddictive drugs are just as harmful as addictive drugs are.

  3. No Impact1% picked this

    Unnecessary deaths and injuries occur in other walks of life besides

    Pointing to the obvious common sense idea that deaths occur outside of sports does nothing to help us argue that nonaddictive drugs should be prohibited among athletes.

  4. No Impact9% picked this

    There would be more unnecessary deaths and injuries if it were not for running shoes, boxing

    This statement defends the utility of equipment in preventing injuries but doesn't give us way to argue that nonaddictive drugs should be prohibited.

  5. Correct72% picked this

    Taking massive doses of aspirin or vitamins can be

    Why this is right

    If taking massive doses of aspirin or vitamins can be physically harmful, this directly challenges the author's rationale that nonaddictive drugs should be allowed. She supports forbidding addictive drugs because of their harm, so by the same logic she should support forbidding nonaddictive drugs. She was assuming a difference (that nonaddictive drugs aren't harmful), but this answer contradicts that assumption.

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

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