QUESTION TYPE: Weaken
CONCLUSION: The use of nonaddictive drugs by athletes should not be prohibited.
REASONING: Purists claim that drugs should be banned because they are unnatural. But there are many things in sports that are unnatural, such as padded boxing gloves. We don’t ban such things just because they are unnatural.
(Addictive drugs are different, of course. They cause harm and should be banned. )
We should be dealing with more serious problems that cause death and injuries.
ANALYSIS: This isn’t a good argument. The author has successfully shown that merely because something is unnatural is not a reason for banning it. But that doesn’t let him conclude that we have no other reason to ban nonaddictive drugs.
It’s important to remember that the author thinks that addictive drugs should be banned because they are physically harmful.
- This is tempting. But maybe the author doesn’t care. He doesn’t seem very concerned about competitive advantages.
- So? The author thinks addictive drugs should be banned, but not because they are unnatural.
- This has nothing to do with sports, and it tells us nothing about whether natural products are safe.
- This provides further support that we shouldn’t ban these things. How does this help weaken the argument?
- CORRECT. Re-read the first sentence. The author is concerned about physically dangerous drugs. If some non-addictive drugs are physically dangerous then the author may wish to ban them too.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly