some sports historians

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 809
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:10 pm
Thanked: 50 times
Followed by:4 members

some sports historians

by akhpad » Mon May 10, 2010 6:08 am
According to some sports historians, professional tennis players develop unique playing styles that result from a combination of the peculiarities of each player's physical attributes and the influence of coaches during their early adaptation to the game. But when the increase in strength and endurance of modem players is discounted, it becomes readily apparent that the playing styles of the current crop of professional tennis players are no different from the styles of players from previous generations. Clearly, there is a universally efficient tennis style to which all professional tennis players conform.

The argument above is most weakened by which of the following statements?

(A) The differences in physical attributes among tennis players are even more pronounced than the sports historians believe.

(B) Few current professional tennis players are familiar with the professional tennis players of fifty years ago.

(C) The increased strength of current tennis players contributes more to the development of individual playing styles than does increased endurance.

(D) All of the early coaches of today's professional tennis players were professional tennis players themselves earlier in their lives.

(E) Weight training and greater attention to diet are the primary factors in the increased strength and stamina of the current generation of professional tennis players.

OA: D

I believe that this is a cause and effect reasoning and it can be weaken by alternate cause. The same thing is in D but I could not understood why D is fitting for this. Can some explain about it?
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:46 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Thanked: 37 times
GMAT Score:700

by sk818020 » Mon May 10, 2010 7:13 am
The argument states that the unique forms of play arise out of physical attributes and coaching. Despite this, when increases in strength and endurance are discounted, all players share a similar style.

Its important to note at this point that the stimulus is arguing that increases in strength and endurance (physical attributes) is responsible for unique forms, not coaching.

The stimulus then concludes that because physical attributes are what give modern players their uniqueness, not coaching, there is a universally efficient style of play.

The way you could weaken this argument is to support that it was coaching that influenced modern players, not their physical attributes. The way you could do this best is to say, despite phsycial attributes, the only reason pros play the way they do is because they were all taugh by former professionals. This attacks the "universallity" in the stimulus's conclusion, because now pros are teaching pros which questions whether the their truley is a universal way to play, or it is simply how pros play.

Legendary Member
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:1 members

by paes » Mon May 10, 2010 10:18 pm
D is strengthening the premise that 'Playing style is effected by the coaching style'. ---> Line 1
While the conclusion is against the above premise. --> 2nd Line, But when .........
(Conclusion is saying that there is a common efficient playing style.)