Reading Comprehension

PT147 · S2 · P1 · Q4 Muscle Memory

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension 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

Passage A Muscle memory is a puzzling phenomenon.

Topic

Muscle memory—why people regain muscle more quickly after losing it

Framework

Answer / Explain (both passages are examining potential explanations for the phenomenon of muscle memory)

Main Point

Both passages explore the question: Why do people quickly regain muscle after a break from training? Passage A proposes neural and psychological explanations, while Passage B presents recent scientific findings about persistent muscle cell nuclei as a potential mechanism for "muscle memory."

**Most Valuable Sentences:** - Passage A: (end P1) - Passage B: (end P3)

P1 (A): Introducing the Mystery of Muscle Memory

Muscle memory is a weird thing that bodybuilders often notice, but scientists barely talk about. After a break, people seem to gain muscle faster the second time—so there must be a real explanation.

P2 (A): Neural Explanation for Muscle Memory

One possible reason is that with training, you get better at using more muscle fibers because your neurons become more efficient. Even after taking a break, your nervous system may "remember" how to activate more fibers, making it easier to get strong again.

P3 (A): Psychological Explanation for Muscle Memory

Or maybe it’s not just physical: the first time you got strong, you were cautious. When you retrain, you’re more confident and push yourself faster, leading to quicker muscle gains.

4.

It can be inferred from the passages that the author of passage A

  1. is more certain than the

    Unsupported Disagree Position: Similar Certainty

    Both authors seem about the same, in terms of being convinced. The opening paragraph of Passage A ends with "with so many athletes observing muscle memory, some plausible explanation must exist". Meanwhile, the opening of passage B is saying, "Pumping up is easier for people who have been buff before". So both authors believe that muscle memory is a real phenomenon.

    3% picked this

  2. probably agrees with the author

    Too Speculative

    Passage A spitballs a couple explanations for muscle memory (more muscle fibers are recruited / it's all in your head), neither of which are the same as the explanation pitched in Passage B (muscle cells retain a 2nd nucleus). Even though I found Passage B's explanation to be pretty compelling, I have no support that the author of Passage A would. In fact, I'm not even sure Passage A has ever heard of the explanation in Passage B.

    19% picked this

  3. Correct

    was probably not aware of

    Why this is right

    This may also feel speculative, but we have some text to point to support our case: The 2nd sentence of A says: virtually no discussions of it have appeared in scientific publications The 1st sentence of B says: now scientists think they know why And passage B's 3rd paragraph talks about a recent study on muscle memory. There's also common sense support for this answer. If the author of Passage A were aware of this passage and aware of the double-nuclei basis for muscle memory, then she would have mentioned it as she was discussing possible explanations for the existence of muscle memory.

    Skill tested: Author Opinion · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

    67% picked this

  4. probably disagrees with the author

    Unsupported Disagree Position

    We have no support that Passage A has any awareness at all of this bonus-nucleus explanation for muscle memory. She doesn't bring it up, and doesn't even think that any scientific studies have been published on it.

    6% picked this

  5. tends to be more skeptical

    Unsupported: skeptical of other species

    This answer is asking us to think, "Since passage A didn't bring up the bonus-nuclei explanation from the mouse experiment, that author must not think it's a plausible explanation yet because she doesn't trust explanations for human physiology that are predicated on experiments about mouse physiology." That would be a ton of speculating on our parts. It doesn't seem like passage A is even aware of this experiment (that passage may have been written before the second one).

    6% 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