Critical Reasoning

For years, a considerable number of students on West County High School's track team complained about shin splints (medial tibial syndrome). However, during the most recent season, the number of students who complained about shin splints dropped significantly. School officials assert that this reduction in complaints occurred entirely as a result of the school's decision to build a new running track that provided a softer running surface, which absorbed much of the shock on the knees and shins that occurs when running and causes shin splints.

Which of the following, if true, most severely weakens the school officials' explanation for the decrease in complaints about shin splints?

A) As a result of West County High School's adoption of better medical staff and new medical scanning devices, many students whose complaints would have been diagnosed in years past as an instance of shin splints are now diagnosed with a different condition.

B) West County High School built its track after a number of neighboring schools with similar track teams built new tracks and each school saw the number of complaints about shin splints drop.

C) This past season, members of West County High School's track team received and wore new and highly acclaimed shoes designed to soften the impact of running on the shin and knee.

D) This past season, the total number of students who complained of pain while running rose.

E) The maker of the new track claims that on average, complaints about shin splints fall 25% when its tracks are implemented.

Kindly discuss your solutions. OA to follow.

IMO C is a strong contender compared to A.

The answer is either A or C.
C= It re affirms the point that custioning makes a difference in the shin splits. So in addition to the softer track when students wore better shoes the number of instances decreased.

A= It says, its not the custioning that makes the difference its just that the diagnosis is proper as a result of medical advancement. Which seriously contradits the claim that custioning made the instances of shin splits go down.

Between A and C, A seriously questions the argument and i think A should be the answer.

OA please

IMO is A. C comes pretty close though.
However, after I read Ron's explanation, now I know why C is the answer. Thanks Ron.

I too agree with A, there is a similar question in OG....because "c" talks only about the "past season" but where as "A" talks about the "years in the past" which is what even the argument discusses....

School officials assert that this reduction in complaints occurred entirely as a result of the school's decision to build a new running track that provided a softer running surface, which absorbed much of the shock on the knees and shins that occurs when running and causes shin splints.

To weaken bring a new cause for the reduction.

A) As a result of West County High School's adoption of better medical staff and new medical scanning devices, many students whose complaints would have been diagnosed in years past as an instance of shin splints are now diagnosed with a different condition.

- Reduction is not because of running track but because correct diagnosis.

C) This past season, members of West County High School's track team received and wore new and highly acclaimed shoes designed to soften the impact of running on the shin and knee.

- seems a strong contender, but the word 'acclaimed' seems to make this choice wrong. What ever has been claimed by others may not have been claimed by the members of west county. Not sure we can assume that far.

OA pls?

OA is C

If the writer said that the number of students diagnosed with shin splints has dropped, then A would make sense. The writer says that complaints have dropped. The fact that complaints about shin splints per se have dropped does not necessarily mean that the overall number of complaints from track injuries has not dropped and that the runners are just renaming their complaints from "shin splints" to the new condition. They could still be coming in complaining about shin splints because they don't know the difference. Therefore, it does not weaken the assertion that new track is doing a good job preventing injuries.

I guess this makes sense!

Explanation found on internet.

It's a "wow" feeling to me
..this is first time my answer has superceded "everyone".... feeling gud dude!!!

Thanks Ron!

Looking at it now, A makes sense