Don’t lose your progress!

We cover every section of the GMAT with in-depth lessons, 5000+ practice questions and realistic practice tests.

Up to 90+ points GMAT score improvement guarantee

The best guarantee you’ll find

Our Premium and Ultimate plans guarantee up to 90+ points score increase or your money back.

Master each section of the test

Comprehensive GMAT prep

We cover every section of the GMAT with in-depth lessons, 5000+ practice questions and realistic practice tests.

Schedule-free studying

Learn on the go

Study whenever and wherever you want with our iOS and Android mobile apps.

The most effective way to study

Personalized GMAT prep, just for you!

Adaptive learning technology focuses on your academic weaknesses.

Critical Reasoning: Conclusion Strengthening Questions

Unless specifically stated in the contract, athletes promoting sporting gear of a company are not obligated to refrain from using sporting gear made by a rival company. Therefore, a leading long distance runner who promotes the sneakers of Company X has decided to wear a brand of sneakers made by Company Y, which better suit his professional needs.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the long-distance runner's decision?



This answer choice weakens the conclusion, but you are required to strengthen it. If wearing one brand while promoting another lowers one's chances of getting a good advertising contract, the athlete's decision is not a good one at all.



This answer choice neither strengthens nor weakens the athlete's decision. The expectations of the advertising companies are irrelevant to the conclusion if they are not followed by actions. How failing to meet these expectations may affect the athlete is the issue at hand.



This answer choice strengthens the athlete's decision. It does so by providing an example of a fellow athlete who benefited from the decision to use one brand while promoting another.



This answer choice neither strengthens nor weakens the conclusion. The popularity of the long distance runner, while probably the reason for getting the promotional contract in the first place, is irrelevant to the athlete's conclusion, since it has nothing to do with the possible effects of using one brand of merchandise while advertising another.



This answer choice deals with a topic that is out of the scope of the argument and cannot, therefore, strengthen the conclusion. Movie actors are not necessarily treated the same way as athletes. Therefore, the expectations from them by the companies whose products they advertise are irrelevant.

An athlete who uses sporting gear made by companies competing with his own is less likely to get advantageous promotional contracts in the future.
Though not obligated to by law, athletes are expected to choose the company merchandise they are promoting during 50% of their participation in a tournament.
A basketball player promoting a beverage who was caught on camera while drinking a beverage manufactured by a rival company renewed his large advertising contract shortly afterwards.
The long distance runner in question is very popular both among teenagers and among young adults.
Movie actors are not expected to wear merchandise they are promoting, or refrain from wearing the merchandise of rival brands.