Need help with Princeton Review's "Edition 2010 practice test one Section IV question 6"

yinyinxu

Very confused on this reasoning question. Can anyone help explain?

@yinyinxu said:
Medical studies indicate that the metabolic rates of professional athletes ar substantially greater than those of the average person. So, most likely, a person's speed and strength are primarily determined by that person's metabolic rate.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
A. Some of the athletes are either faster or stronger than the average person
B. Some professional athletes do not have higher metabolic rate than some of the average ppl
C. The speed and the strength of ppl who are not professional athletes are not primarily determined by choice of diet and exercise
D. Intensive training such as that engaged in by professional athletes causes an increase in metabolic rate
E. Drugs that surprises metabolic rate have been shown to have the side effect of diminishing the speed and strength of those who are not professional athlete

Admin note: This is a fake question, so take it as you will.

yinyinxu

then how can i have this this question be answered?

yinyinxu

it's not on pretest tho

inactive

Where did you get the question from?

yinyinxu

Princeton review practice test

yinyinxu

Edition 2010 practice test one Section IV question 6

inactive

Ah. Princeton Review uses fake questions, so I don't know how much that's going to help you. Feel free to post it again and I'll edit it into the subject like it was before.

ENTJ

@yinyinxu You shouldn't make it a habit of using fake questions created by LSAT prep courses. There are tons of actual past LSATs that have many many questions that you can use to hone your skills.

Pacifico

Yeah PR and others are just kindling for the fire by which you take your real PTs...

Pacifico

Also technically he didn't break any rules right?

inactive

@Pacifico said:
Also technically he didn't break any rules right?

Nah, I thought he posted an actual question. The title was different, I edited it to update info.

Pacifico

Lmao... I kinda love that it's not against the rules since the questions are made up...

yinyinxu

Man.. it was a long type..

yinyinxu

Medical studies indicate that the metabolic rates of professional athletes ar substantially greater than those of the average person. So, most likely, a person's speed and strength are primarily determined by that person's metabolic rate.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
A. Some of the athletes are either faster or stronger than the average person
B. Some professional athletes do not have higher metabolic rate than some of the average ppl
C. The speed and the strength of ppl who are not professional athletes are not primarily determined by choice of diet and exercise
D. Intensive training such as that engaged in by professional athletes causes an increase in metabolic rate
E. Drugs that surprises metabolic rate have been shown to have the side effect of diminishing the speed and strength of those who are not professional athlete

c.janson35

More than anything, that question makes me thankful that LSAC are such pros. Because that question is just bad.

Burn that book. Or get your money back if you can. Even without explanations, the 10 Actuals books are infinitely better than that PR book you're working with.

ENTJ

Hahahah. @c.janson35 I totally agree.

yinyinxu

but what's ur answer?

c.janson35

A: doesn't help us prove that met rate causes speed/strength
B: directly contradicts the first and only premise, so this wouldn't strengthen
C: ok, not determined by diet and excercise... But you would have to make the assumption that not diet and excercise means that met rate is the causal factor which seems to be unwarranted and is definitely unsupported.
this gets the causal relationship backwards, so no help.
E: the only answer remaining. This would strengthen the conclusion, but not the argument per se (because it only deals with the conclusion, and the premise would be irrelevant). It would strenghten the causal conclusion by showing when the cause isn't there, the effect isn't there either. But it really feels like I'm answering a question that asks "what is 2+2?" by picking an answer that says 5, just because the other 4 answers were "apples; TRUMP; sacapunta; and vervet monkeys."

TL;DR... Burn the book

yinyinxu

I was so confused and depressed, thanks for helping me out here . I'll burn it all...

Pacifico

best thread ever @c.janson35

DumbHollywoodActor

Burn it all! Love it!

nicole.hopkins

@yinyinxu said:
I'll burn it all...

Yes!