Fitness coaches are professionals who earn their income by providing personalized training and nutrition advice that is not easily accessible to most individuals. With the rise of mobile apps and online platforms, much of this information can now be directly accessed by users. As more individuals utilize these technologies, the demand for fitness coaches is expected to decline significantly.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines this argument?

Answer Choices

Correct answer marked below

Many individuals prefer personalized guidance and accountability from fitness coaches over using apps.

Correct

The number of fitness apps available is increasing at a rate faster than individuals can effectively use them.

Most people who engage in fitness activities do so without the help of a coach.

Individuals who currently rely on fitness coaches are also the ones most likely to adopt new fitness technologies.

The majority of the population does not currently use fitness apps or online platforms.

See the full step-by-step explanation

You can see the correct answer above. Sign in for free to unlock the complete worked solution.

Track your performance and improve

Get detailed analytics, unlock full explanations, and move up difficulty tiers as you practice.

Start for free Sign in

Explanation

Preview

Official Explanation

Official

The argument suggests that as more individuals gain access to fitness apps and online platforms, the demand for fitness coaches will decrease. To weaken this argument, we need to show that there are reasons individuals might still prefer fitness coaches despite the availability of technology. The statement 'Many individuals prefer…

Read the full explanation

Create free account Sign in

Comments

ArinApr 12, 2025

Thanks for sharingThank you for sharing!!thanks for sharing

ShunFeb 3, 2024

taking my GMAT next month, this helps!

What this question tests

What it tests

Whether you can identify the option that most undermines an argument's conclusion.

Common trap

Choosing an irrelevant objection or one that attacks the premise rather than the reasoning.