Question

All good athletes who want to win are disciplined and have a well balanced diet. Therefore, athletes who do not have a well balanced diet are bad athletes. Which of the statements below strongly supports the view expressed above?

• A. No bad athlete wants to win.
• B. No athlete who does not eat a well balanced diet is a good athlete.
• C. Every athlete who eats a well balanced diet is a good athlete.
• D. All athletes who want to win are good athletes.

Hint:

Find the option that directly restates the diet-to-bad-athlete link as a universal rule.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Break down the original statement.
The passage says: all good athletes who want to win are disciplined and have a well balanced diet. In logical terms: if an athlete is good and wants to win, then that athlete is disciplined and has a well balanced diet.
Step 2: Understand the conclusion drawn.
The passage then concludes: athletes who do not have a well balanced diet are bad athletes. This is saying: if an athlete lacks a well balanced diet, then that athlete is a bad athlete, not a good one.
Step 3: Identify what strongly supports means here.
We need to find the statement among the options that, if true, would make the stated conclusion logically valid or well founded. This means we need the statement that most directly connects lacking a balanced diet to being a bad athlete.
Step 4: Test option (2).
Option (2) says: no athlete who does not eat a well balanced diet is a good athlete. This is a direct universal statement equivalent to: if an athlete does not have a balanced diet, then that athlete is not a good athlete, meaning they are a bad athlete. This is exactly the logical backbone the passage's conclusion needs.
Step 5: Rule out the other options.
Option (1) talks about bad athletes not wanting to win, an unrelated claim about motivation, not diet. Option (3) only tells us that eating a balanced diet makes someone good, which is the reverse direction and does not address what happens when the diet is missing. Option (4) links wanting to win with being good, but again does not address the diet condition needed for the stated conclusion.
Step 6: Conclude.
Since option (2) directly and completely backs the reasoning behind the passage's conclusion, it is the statement that strongly supports the given view, confirming answer (2).