Critical Reasoning

All of the athletes who will win a medal in competition have spent many hours training under an elite coach. Michael is coached by one of the world's elite coaches; therefore it follows logically that Michael will win a medal in competition.
The argument above logically depends on which of the following assumptions?
(A) Michael has not suffered any major injuries in the past year.
(B) Michael's competitors did not spend as much time in training as Michael did.
(C) Michael's coach trained him for many hours.
(D) Most of the time Michael spent in training was productive.
(E) Michael performs as well in competition as he does in training.

Mechmeera wrote:All of the athletes who will win a medal in competition have spent many hours training under an elite coach. Michael is coached by one of the world's elite coaches; therefore it follows logically that Michael will win a medal in competition.
The argument above logically depends on which of the following assumptions?
(A) Michael has not suffered any major injuries in the past year.
(B) Michael's competitors did not spend as much time in training as Michael did.
(C) Michael's coach trained him for many hours.
(D) Most of the time Michael spent in training was productive.
(E) Michael performs as well in competition as he does in training.

Conclusion: Michael will win a medal

Premises: All medal winners trained for many hours under elite coach; Michael trained with elite coach

So if Michael were to win a medal, we know that he'd have had to train for many hours with an elite coach. If he has an elite coach, the only piece he's missing is the many hours with this coach. That's what C gives us.

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

Mechmeera wrote:All of the athletes who will win a medal in competition have spent many hours training under an elite coach. Michael is coached by one of the world's elite coaches; therefore it follows logically that Michael will win a medal in competition.
The argument above logically depends on which of the following assumptions?
(A) Michael has not suffered any major injuries in the past year.
(B) Michael's competitors did not spend as much time in training as Michael did.
(C) Michael's coach trained him for many hours.
(D) Most of the time Michael spent in training was productive.
(E) Michael performs as well in competition as he does in training.

Conclusion: Michael will win a medal

Premises: All medal winners trained for many hours under elite coach; Michael trained with elite coach

So if Michael were to win a medal, we know that he'd have had to train for many hours with an elite coach. If he has an elite coach, the only piece he's missing is the many hours with this coach. That's what C gives us.

I got stuck between C and E. I feel the argument will collapse if we negate option C.
Am I correct/wrong? Please explain?

Mechmeera wrote:I got stuck between C and E. I feel the argument will collapse if we negate option C.
Am I correct/wrong? Please explain?

E, negated:
Michael does not perform as well in competition as he does in training.
Here, Michael could still perform better than his competitors and thus win a medal.
Since the negation of E does not invalidate the conclusion that Michael will win a medal, eliminate E.

I got stuck between C and E. I feel the argument will collapse if we negate option C.
Am I correct/wrong? Please explain?

That's exactly right. The correct answer in an Assumption question, when negated, will undermine the argument. C, when negated, destroys the argument. So this is correct. And as Mitch noted, E, when negated, does not undermine the argument.