Physiological research has uncovered disturbing evidence linking a number of structural disorders to jogging. Among t...

Ravi July 23, 2019

@Julie-V,

Happy to help. Let's take a look at (A) and (C).

The argument is basically saying that there is a large correlation
between jogging and getting injuries. The argument uses the
correlation to make the claim that human anatomy isn't build to
withstand the stresses of jogging.

The argument is showing a correlation between two things and is
attempting to conclude causation. However, the argument needs to
justify this, and it needs to show that jogging does actually cause
these disorders and isn't merely correlated with them. This is the
assumption the argument is making.

This question is a strengthen with a necessary
premise question, so if the negation of an answer choice wrecks the
argument, then we know that it's the correct answer choice.

(C) says, "The jogger’s level of experience is a factor determining
the likelihood of a jogging injury."

(C)'s negation is, "Experience does not determine the likelihood of a
jogging injury."

The problem with (C) is that the argument states taht there are an
equal percentage of injuries between beginners and veteran joggers.
The negation of (C) doesn't wreck the argument, so (C) isn't an
assumption that must be true for the argument. Thus, it's out.

(A) says, "The link between jogging and certain structural disorders
appears to be a causal one."

(A)'s negation is, "There is not a causal link between jogging and
these structural disorders."

(A) does a great job in highlighting what the argument is assuming.
The negation of (A) would totally wreck the argument, and this shows
that (A) is an assumption that the argument is making. Thus, it's the
correct answer choice.

Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!

nimakian801 May 7, 2020

The argument doesn't really rely on the assumption that there's a causal relationship though. The stimulus says ”connected”. Which means that jogging could lead to it but just because it's possible doesn't mean it will happen. I don't see why the argument relies on the assumption that there's a casual relationship when if there was none the argument would still be valid.

nimakian801 May 7, 2020

Oh, nevermind I understand now. So it's because the conclusion is saying that the human body can not withstand the stresses of jogging so the author is concluding that the stress of jogging is somehow causing the ailments. And so if the relationship wasn't causal then the conclusion wouldn't necessarily be true. Right?