What is the author's main claim?
Governments justify spending on elite athletes by pointing to the inspiration their victories give. Medals, it is said, make the nation more active. The claim is plausible but poorly supported: studies that look for a rise in participation after major events find short-lived or negligible effects. If the aim is a more active population, money is probably better spent on local pitches, swimming pools and safe routes to school. That is not to say that elite sport has no value. Success can give pleasure and pride in its own right, and some countries may legitimately wish to pursue it. But the pride is not the same as public health, and to claim that medals will make people fitter is to offer a justification that the evidence does not support.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: A. Spending on elite sport cannot be justified by the claim that it raises participation
- Step 1: The last sentence says the claim that medals will make people fitter is a justification the evidence does not support.
- Step 2: The only choice consistent with this is "Spending on elite sport cannot be justified by the claim that it raises participation".
Answer
Spending on elite sport cannot be justified by the claim that it raises participation.
Why not the others: The author concedes that elite sport has value in its own right, and says participation effects are small.
Practise more Sport.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.