PT152 S4 Q13 ExplanationColumnist: Banning performance enhancing drugs

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Out of Scope: lose respect1% picked this

   Spectators would not lose respect for athletes who they know are

   If we negate this, it does sound like an objection to the idea that "we should allow PEDs under doctor's supervision", because it would be saying, "Yes, but spectators would lose respect for athletes that they know are taking PEDs." First, we don't know whether spectators would or would not know certain athletes take PEDs. Secondly, we don't know whether this author cares about spectators' losing respect. I would consider this answer if nothing else was better, because negating it somewhat weakens the argument.

   1%
2. B

   Too Strong: same effect on all10% picked this

   PEDs would not improve the performance of some athletes more

   This is saying something strong in a very disguised way. If we're saying "X would not have more of effect Y and some things than on other things", then we're saying "X would have an identical effect Y on all things". The author definitely doesn't need to assume the extreme claim that "PEDs would improve the performance of all athletes identically".

   10%
3. C

   Out of Scope6% picked this

   Athletes do not take PEDs thinking they help performance in cases in which they

   Out of Scope: used in wrong situation The author is never talking about anything resembling using PEDs mistakenly, thinking it would help something that it wouldn't. She has no opinion on this. If we negate this answer, it's saying that athletes do sometimes take PEDs thinking they'll help performance even though they won't. That doesn't weaken the author's argument. Since the argument is constraining PEDs to be taken in safe doses administered by doctors, if an athlete takes a safe dose and it doesn't help them, no harm no foul.

   6%
4. D

   Out of Scope8% picked this

   Athletes currently using PEDs cannot find doctors willing to

   Out of Scope: currently using PEDs Out of Scope: finding doctors The argument doesn't say anything about current PED users. It says some timeless statements about athletes wanting to gain an advantage. The argument also isn't talking about the ease / impossibility of finding a doctor who will prescribe a PED.

   8%
5. E

   Correct75% picked this

   Using PEDs at unsafe levels does not create a big competitive advantage over using them

   Why this is right

   Whenever we're doing Necessary Assumption and we see an answer choice ruling out an idea with the word "not", we slow down and think, "ooh, let's negate this". Would this negation weaken? using PEDs at unsafe levels does create a big competitive advantage over using them at safe levels Yes, it hurts the author's notion that we should allow PEDs. The author is thinking "we'll allow them, doctors will administer them in safe doses, and the health risks will disappear". This negation is saying, "The athletes will want more than a safe dose from a doctor, if unsafe levels creates a big competitive advantage." After all, we were told that athletes will do whatever it takes to gain a big competitive advantage. So this negation suggests that athletes, even if we allow PEDs under doctor's supervision, will find a way to get unsafe levels in their system. I will say, this answer seems to bother me because it presents (when negated) an objection that feels out of scope. The author seemed to be saying, "Let's allow PEDs only under medical supervision" and this objection would only work if athletes were taking PEDs outside of medical supervision. But the idea of "allow" is in the context of sports. So the conclusion is meant to be saying, "We should allow baseball players to use PEDs, as long as it's under a doctor's care." And this answer, when negated, is making the objection that, "Athletes won't just be content to take the safe, allowed level of PEDs. They'll still go around the rule; they'll do whatever it takes to gain the big competitive advantage of an unsafe dose."

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

   75%