PT 56 Section 3 #12
Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2013 12:16 am
Hello everybody. This question drives me crazy
Premise:
1.Several studies showed that when participating in competitive sports, people who have recently been experiencing major stress in their lives are several times more likely to suffer injuries than other participants in competitive sports.
2. Risking seriously is unwise
Conclusion: No sports activity should be used as a method for coping with stress
Question: Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in the advice columnist's argument?
And right answer choice:
If people recently under stress should avoid a subset of activities of a certain type, they should avoid all activities of that type.
The only way I can make any sense from this answer is by equating "risking serious is unwise" to "should avoid a subset of activities". But this is such a huge leap! Jumping from evaluation (unwise) to prescription (should avoid).
What do you think?
Premise:
1.Several studies showed that when participating in competitive sports, people who have recently been experiencing major stress in their lives are several times more likely to suffer injuries than other participants in competitive sports.
2. Risking seriously is unwise
Conclusion: No sports activity should be used as a method for coping with stress
Question: Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in the advice columnist's argument?
And right answer choice:
If people recently under stress should avoid a subset of activities of a certain type, they should avoid all activities of that type.
The only way I can make any sense from this answer is by equating "risking serious is unwise" to "should avoid a subset of activities". But this is such a huge leap! Jumping from evaluation (unwise) to prescription (should avoid).
What do you think?