Passage Summary: The author argues that while addictive drugs are clearly bad, nonaddictive drugs shouldn't be banned just for being 'unnatural,' especially since we allow unnatural equipment and have bigger safety concerns to worry about.

Reasoning: The passage provides several premises: addictive drugs are harmful and unjustified; purists want to ban nonaddictive drugs for being unnatural; the author rejects this because sports equipment is also unnatural; and there are more serious problems in sports.

Analysis: In a 'Must be True' scenario, we are looking for a statement that is logically guaranteed by the text. The author makes a very strong, absolute claim at the beginning: addictive drugs are physically harmful, and their use is 'never justified.' This is a goldmine for an inference. Look for an answer that reflects this absolute stance or perhaps the author's view that 'unnaturalness' is not a sufficient standard for banning something. Avoid any choices that go beyond the specific claims made about the harm of addictive drugs or the inconsistency of the purists.