Q6 - Researchers studying athletes found that those who

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Inference (most supported)

Stimulus Breakdown:
DISTINCTION: "play for love" had sharper vision than "play to win".
CAUSAL DISTINCTION: (vision was sharper because) focus on activity leads to better vision-concentration than people not focused on activity.

Answer Anticipation:
Inference is all about combining ideas in order to derive some other idea. To combine ideas, you normally need some OVERLAPPING IDEA, which in this case is the sharper vision.

Sharper vision went more with "playing for love", and sharper vision went more with "focused on the activity itself", so LSAT probably wants us to connect "playing for love" with "more focused on the activity itself", or to connect "playing for trophy/win" with "less focused on activity itself".

Correct Answer:
C

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) "Winning is not important" is an extreme idea. People might play mainly for love but still find winning important.

(B) Close, but too extreme. It's conditional, and it's saying the "Play for trophy" crowd will NOT HAVE ADEQUATE VISION. We're just saying they are more likely to have LESS-SHARP VISION.

(C) YES, this just combines sentence 1 and sentence 2, both of which addressed sharper vision, connecting it to "play for love" and "focus more on the activity itself".

(D) "It is impossible" = stop reading. Way too strong!

(E) "Perform better than ANY athlete" = way too strong.

Takeaway/Pattern: On Inference questions, we read primarily for CONDITIONAL rules/chains, CAUSAL relationships/chains, QUANTITATIVE ideas, or COMPARATIVE distinctions/similarities.

When you see something like, "Sentence 1. And this is because Sentence 2", you know they're trying to get you to restate the causal connection between sentence 1 and sentence 2.

#officialexplanation