crispycrispr wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 7:50 pm
crispycrispr wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 7:44 pm
@LSAT180 I think you've got the premise and conclusion backwards...I was confused by this question the first time I did it because of the same reason. If health risks will disappear when handled in this fashion is the premise, I think you're right that (E) is irrelevant. But the last sentence is a premise. It might help if you think about this in the context of a more relevant subject matter. Ignore the performance-enhancing part. Imagine if it's just drugs or shrooms. Naturally, someone advocating for the legalization of drugs would support their position by saying that if a doctor prescribes it, it'd be safe (health risks will disappear). So then the question is, even if health risks will disappear if a doctor prescribes it, will someone take the drug if it's only at the dosage prescribed by the doctor? Which would lead you to (E).
well actually, I take it back ... I think "no more health risks" is the conclusion, and (E) is relevant because taking at unsafe levels is synonymous with the presence of health risk. So to ensure that the legalization & regulation part actually prevents health risks, you need to say that athletes wouldn't choose unsafe dosage over safe dosage, which is (E). (E) doesn't really do anything to the argument if "PEDs should be allowed, but only if administered under a doctor's care ..." because negating (E) would just be that taking at unsafe levels creates a competitive advantage over safe levels (so what?).
The conclusion is, "When handled in this fashion the health risks from PEDs disappear." And of course "handled in this fashion" refers to making them legal under a doctor's care. So the author is claiming that if we make them legal under a doctor's care, the health risks of athletes taking PEDs is no longer a problem. However, earlier in the stimulus he mentioned that top athletes are currently ignoring the rule banning PEDs because using them provides such a large competitive advantage.
What he fails to consider is that the safe level that the doctor prescribes may not be as advantageous to an athlete's performance as the current levels they are being used at. IF top athletes could gain an advantage over other athletes by using them at higher levels they might do that, particularly since they've already shown a willingness to break the current ban on them. That is where the assumption comes in. The author assumes that the level that the doctor would prescribe would give athletes a similar advantage to the way PEDs are currently used.
To answer your "so what" question at the end, if you negate this and using PEDs at an unsafe level creates a competitive advantage, you have a huge hole in your argument because the athletes have already shown a willingness to break the rules to gain an advantage. Therefore, the conclusion no longer holds that a doctor's prescription is what is needed to make PED usage safe.