Logical Reasoning

PT152 · S4 · Q13 Columnist: Banning performance enhancing drugs

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

Columnist: Banning performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) from sports will not stop their use.

Conclusion (So, should)

PEDs should be allowed, assuming they're administered under a doctor's care to make sure it's a safe dose.

Evidence

With a safe dose handled under a doctor's care, the health risks from PEDs disappear.

Intermediate Conclusion

Banning PEDs won't stop their use

Evidence

PEDs provide too big a competitive advantage and top athletes will do whatever it takes to gain a big competitive advantage.

Evaluate

A missing link assumption here would sound something like,

or to get from premise to intermediate conclusion,

What about objections? How could we accept the premises but argue that "we should not allow PEDs"?

We can't object based on health risks, because the author is saying they'd only take it under doctor's supervision, which would eliminate the health risks.

But what could be other negatives about allowing PEDs? If athletes are allowed to take them, and would gain an advantage by taking them, then aren't they going to all end up having to take them, lest they otherwise be at a disadvantage?

Would we as sports fans be happier or less happy with an NBA or an MLB where every player is on steroids? Would it send a negative message about drugs, to kids who look up to these athletes as role models?

Goal

Look for a missing link answer connecting , or for an answer ruling out an objection.

If an answer, when we negate it, allows us to argue that "banning PEDs would stop their use" or to argue that , that would weaken the argument.

If negating an answer turns the answer into a weakening objection, then it's correct.

13.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the columnist's argument?

Spectators would not lose respect
Out of Scope: lose respect
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% picked this
PEDs would not improve the
Too Strong: same effect on all
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% picked this
Athletes do not take PEDs
Out of Scope
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% picked this
Athletes currently using PEDs cannot
Out of Scope
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% picked this
Correct
Using PEDs at unsafe levels
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% 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