PT31, S3, Q21 - So-called "engineered foods"

[sunhwa2881]

Can you please explain why the correct answer choice is C, not A?

[jjunderwood42]

The arg revolves around the benefit of consuming eng foods.

(A) it's not an assumption that's needed so. The point is made that strength is not gained because a growth in connective tissue rather than mass occurs. Direct implication is that growth in muscle mass will lead to increased strength.

(C) Conclusion is that athletes should not consume eng foods.
Eng foods contain proteins and vitamins and minerals. The amino acids present (which come from the proteins) don't help improve strength. But the vitamins and minerals could. So in concluding there is no benefit, the assumption must be that the vitamins and minerals also have no other benefit.

[giladedelman]

Thanks for the question, and thanks for jumping in, JJ! If you don't mind, I'd like to add my two cents, as well.

There's a lot of detail in this argument, so we want to be sure we've honed in on the core, which is something like this:

Engineered foods stimulate growth hormones, but those hormones don't improve muscle strength. Athletes need to improve muscle strength. Therefore, athletes shouldn't eat engineered foods.

Well, there's a pretty big assumption there! The argument assumes that improving muscle strength is the only reason an athlete would eat engineered foods. But couldn't there be other benefits from engineered foods, even if they don't enhance muscle strength? Toothpaste doesn't increase muscle strength, either; should athletes therefore avoid brushing their teeth?

(C) is correct. It expresses the assumption we identified: that there is no other benefit to athletes from eating engineered foods.

(A) is tempting, but don't be fooled: we're told that engineered foods don't increase muscle mass and don't enhance muscle strength. Whether increasing muscle mass actually does lead to increased muscle strength is irrelevant, because the argument is about whether athletes should eat engineered foods.
(But be careful, JJ! The fact that not increasing muscle mass doesn't increase strength does not directly imply that increasing muscle mass leads to increased strength!)

(B) is out of scope. We're talking about athletes!

(D) is out of scope. Nutrients that can be obtained elsewhere? Unhealthy? Okay, but should athletes eat it?

(E) goes in the opposite direction. If this were true, then the author would probably conclude that athletes should eat engineered foods.

Thanks again for starting the discussion, guys! I hope my perspective added something.