Lsat180Please wrote:My prephrase for this question was something that says "just because it is administered by a doctor does not mean that there aren't potential risks" so I was looking for an answer that explained this. I am still a bit confused with E because I thought it was out of scope since his conclusion is specifically focusing on the facts that PED's are safe when under a doctors care. So if athletes are motivated to break the rules and take PEDs at unsafe levels, and thus outside the administration of the doctor, isn't that out of scope since he is specifically arguing that they are only safe under a doctors care (he never said they are safe outside of that). This "scope" part confused me because I saw the potential in E but I was a afraid it was out of scope! thanks!!
In order to test whether answer choice (E) is out of scope, let's focus in on the conclusion, which is, in substance: The health risks of PEDs will disappear if *a rule is instituted* that PEDs can only be administered in safe doses under doctor's supervision.
The problem this proposal is purporting to solve is that banning PEDs altogether would be ineffective because athletes will just violate the rules if it provides a competitive advantage.
The flaw: What's keeping the athletes from violating this new, even more permissive rule and using PEDs in unsafe doses without a doctor's supervision? If an all-out ban wouldn't stop them from using PEDs in unsafe doses, then why would a slightly more limited control of PEDs be any more likely to stop them from using PEDs in unsafe doses?
Answer choice (E) is very much relevant to the flawed reasoning presented in the stimulus, since it exposes the unwarranted assumption that the athletes would abide by the new rule of taking PEDs only under a doctor's supervision, even while they would be expected to violate an outright ban. In order for the conclusion to follow, we would have to know that athletes wouldn't have an incentive to violate the new rule. So we have to assume that athletes wouldn't get a competitive advantage from using PEDs at unsafe levels.
I hope that helps!