Summarize Argument
The author argues that for athletes to become champions, they must have a superior mastery of athletic techniques. To support this, the author tells us that high-level athletes have similar muscular strength, so strength alone doesn’t make a champion. Instead, athletic techniques help athletes use their strength more efficiently. That means that mastery of athletic techniques can act as a differentiating factor between top athletes and true champions.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is that “a requirement for an athlete to become a champion is a superior mastery of athletic techniques.”
A
Only champion athletes have a superior mastery of athletic techniques.
This confuses the necessary and sufficient conditions of the conclusion. Just because champions must have superior mastery, that doesn’t mean someone who isn’t a champion cannot; there may be additional requirements to be a champion.
B
Superior muscular strength is a requirement for an athlete to become a champion.
The author never actually states whether or not superior strength is required to be a champion. It may be a tempting assumption, but the argument is focused on superior mastery of techniques. Strength may or may not be required.
C
No athlete can become a champion without a superior mastery of athletic techniques.
This is a good restatement of the conclusion. The rest of the argument leads to this claim by showing that raw strength isn’t the deciding factor, and that technique can increase athletes’ efficient use of strength.
D
The differences in muscular strength between top athletes are not great.
This is not supported by anything else in the argument, so cannot be the conclusion. Instead, it is used as support for the conclusion by eliminating differences in strength as a factor in who becomes a champion.
E
Athletic techniques help athletes use limited resources efficiently.
This is not supported by anything else in the argument, so cannot be the conclusion. It is used to help explain how mastery of technique can improve athletes’ performance, thus making technique a factor in being a champion.
Summary
Before 1985, all commercial airlines replaced the cabin air in a plane once every 30 minutes. After 1985, airlines replace the cabin air once every hour. The less frequently cabin air is replaced, the higher the level of carbon dioxide in the cabin air and the easier it is for airborne illnesses to spread.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Modern airplanes have higher levels of carbon dioxide in the cabin air compared to planes before 1985.
A
In 1985 there was a loosening of regulations concerning cabin air in commercial airline flights.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus what caused commercial airlines to replace the rate of replacement from every 30 minutes to every hour.
B
People who fly today are more likely to contract airborne illnesses than were people who flew prior to 1985.
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus is limited to what is true of commercial airlines. For this answer, you have to assume that people who fly today fly on commercial airlines.
C
Low levels of carbon dioxide in cabin air make it impossible for airborne illnesses to spread.
This answer is unsupported. “Impossible” is too strong in this answer. We only know from the stimulus that higher levels of carbon dioxide can make it easier for airborne illness to spread.
D
In 1980 the rate at which the cabin air was replenished in commercial airliners was sufficient to protect passengers from the effects of carbon dioxide buildup.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus what the effects of carbon dioxide buildup are.
E
In 1980 the level of carbon dioxide in the cabin air on a two-hour commercial airline flight was lower than it is today on a similar flight.
This answer is strongly supported. Since cabin air would have been replaced every 30 minutes during a flight in 1980, that flight would have lower levels of carbon dioxide compared to a similar modern flight.
An additional note to (D)
The reasoning Quick Silver gave below is correct. The bigger flaw in the argument is that they were surveying people who already bought video conferencing equipment. If they already bought video conferencing equipment, then presumably they needed video conferencing equipment. That's like saying most people could use a nice new set of golf clubs because we survey people who already owned golf clubs and they said it was a great purchase.