Critical Reasoning

A recently published article on human physiology claims that enzyme K contributes to improved performance in strenuous activities such as weightlifting and sprinting. The article cites evidence of above-average levels of enzyme K in Olympic weightlifters and sprinters.
Which of the following if true, would most strengthen the article's conclusion?

(A) Enzyme K levels are the most important factor affecting the performance of strenuous activities.
(B) Enzyme K has no other function in the human body.
(C) Enzyme K is required for the performance of strenuous activities.
(D) Enzyme K helps weightlifters more than it helps sprinters.
(E) Strenuous activities do not cause the human body to produce unusually high levels of enzyme K.
On deamand the oa is spoiled The OA is E the answer to this SC is a no contest
I agree E is a good answer to an Assumption question but this is a strengthen question .
the conclusion is enzyme K contributes to improved performance in strenuous activities such as weightlifting and sprinting.
please explain how to eliminate A and B why is E correct ?Not very happy with kaplan explanation

Conclusion: Enzyme K = improved performance

Evidence: Olympic athletes have above-average levels of enzyme K

Assumptions: Enzyme K is not an effect, but a cause

Question Rephrase: What makes the link between Enzyme K and improved performance stronger?

Prediction: Anything that more clearly shows that Enzyme K CAUSES improved performance, and that its presence in Olympic athletes is not coincidence.

E is the perfect match. It solidifies the only assumption. In that way it DOES strengthen because the Conclusion NEEDS that Assumption in order to be strengthened.

A can be eliminated because the "importance" of Enzyme K does not in any way show how Enzyme K CAUSES improved performance.

B can be eliminated, too. Just because Enzyme K has no other function does not necessarily mean that the presence of Enzyme K is not a by-product of Olympic athletes. Again, the conclusion is that enzyme K LEADS TO improved performance. Nothing here supports that.

VivianKerr wrote:
B can be eliminated, too. Just because Enzyme K has no other function does not necessarily mean that the presence of Enzyme K is not a by-product of Olympic athletes. Again, the conclusion is that enzyme K LEADS TO improved performance. Nothing here supports that.

Hi Vivian Thanks for the Explanation But You are eliminating B in light of the consideration that the conclusion needs something to guarantee that the enzyme K was not secreted because of the strenuous activities .
A conclusion can have more than 1 assumption .Also reinforcing an assumption is not the only way to strengthen a conclusion .
Could you analyse B without requiring the assumption that " enzyme K is not secreted as a result of these strenuous activities "

Here's another way to think of it. Anything that "strengthens the conclusion" must directly relate to the conclusion.

The conclusion is "Enzyme K = improved performance".

How does knowing the function of Enzyme K prove that it CAUSES improved performance? It doesn't.

How Enzyme Z "functions" is not a part of the conclusion. What will strengthen the conclusion is something that will ALSO link Enzyme K to improved performance. B is missing the conclusion entirely.

mundasingh123, would appreciate if you can spoiler

rishijhawar wrote:mundasingh123, would appreciate if you can spoiler

As You Wish Sir

Question type: Strengthen.

Argument structure: X cause Y.
X = Enzyme K
Y = extra strength.

E) shows that Y doesn't cause X.