Necessary AssumptionDiff: Medium
Logic Breakdown
Passage Summary: Engineered foods help grow connective tissue but don't directly build muscle strength through growth hormones. Because of this, the author claims athletes who want to be stronger shouldn't use them.
Conclusion: Athletes who want to increase their muscle strength should avoid consuming engineered foods.
Reasoning: Engineered foods stimulate growth hormones that only affect connective tissue rather than muscle mass, and therefore do not improve strength.
Analysis: The argument contains a significant gap: it assumes that because one specific pathway (growth hormones) doesn't lead to muscle strength, the food has no other way of helping. We need to find a 'Necessary Assumption,' something the argument must have to survive. If engineered foods provided strength through a different mechanism—like the protein itself aiding muscle repair—the conclusion would fall apart. Look for an answer that rules out other potential benefits these foods might provide for muscle strength.
Conclusion: Athletes who want to increase their muscle strength should avoid consuming engineered foods.
Reasoning: Engineered foods stimulate growth hormones that only affect connective tissue rather than muscle mass, and therefore do not improve strength.
Analysis: The argument contains a significant gap: it assumes that because one specific pathway (growth hormones) doesn't lead to muscle strength, the food has no other way of helping. We need to find a 'Necessary Assumption,' something the argument must have to survive. If engineered foods provided strength through a different mechanism—like the protein itself aiding muscle repair—the conclusion would fall apart. Look for an answer that rules out other potential benefits these foods might provide for muscle strength.
Passage Stimulus
Passage Redacted
Unlock Full Passage21.The argument depends on assuming which one of the following?
Correct Answer
C
C is necessary. The conclusion that athletes should not consume engineered foods presumes there’s no other substantial advantage to athletes from taking them. Negation test: If engineered foods do offer some other substantial advantage to athletes, then the recommendation to avoid them collapses. So C must be true for the author’s conclusion to hold.
Upgrade Your Prep
Ready to go beyond free explanations?
LSAT Perfection is the #1 modern LSAT prep platform, trusted by thousands of students for comprehensive test strategies, advanced drilling, and full analytics on every PrepTest.
Detailed explanations for 59 PrepTests
Advanced drillset builder
Personalized analytics
Built-in Wrong Answer Journal