Very strongly supported. The author both concedes that nonaddictive drugs are unnatural and affirms that they should not be banned. Together, these statements allow us to infer that a thing’s unnaturalness is not sufficient reason to ban it from sports.

Anti-supported. The author cedes that nonaddictive drugs are unnatural, although she does not believe that this is sufficient reason to prohibit their use.

Anti-supported. The author does not believe that anything should be prohibited solely because it is unnatural. She believes that addictive drugs should be banned, but because they’re physically harmful, not because they’re unnatural.

Unsupported. While we do know that addictive drugs are physically harmful, we can’t infer that they cause unnecessary deaths and injuries. The physical harm they inflict could take another form, like illness.

Unsupported. We don’t know how addictive drug use stacks up against unnecessary deaths and injuries—the drugs could cause these things, for all we know! We know that the use of nonaddictive drugs by athletes is less serious than unnecessary injuries, but that isn’t what (E) says.