If you know what you're worth, then go out and get what you're worth. But you gotta be willing to take the hits, and not pointing fingers saying you ain't where you wanna be because of anybody! Cowards do that and You're better than that!
The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short; the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy.
Fire the final bullet only when you are constantly hitting the Bull's eye, till then KEEP PRACTICING.
Failure establishes only this, that our determination to succeed was not strong enough.

Press +1 Kudos, if you think my post gave u a tiny tip.

If you know what you're worth, then go out and get what you're worth. But you gotta be willing to take the hits, and not pointing fingers saying you ain't where you wanna be because of anybody! Cowards do that and You're better than that!
The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short; the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy.
Fire the final bullet only when you are constantly hitting the Bull's eye, till then KEEP PRACTICING.
Failure establishes only this, that our determination to succeed was not strong enough.

Press +1 Kudos, if you think my post gave u a tiny tip.

If you know what you're worth, then go out and get what you're worth. But you gotta be willing to take the hits, and not pointing fingers saying you ain't where you wanna be because of anybody! Cowards do that and You're better than that!
The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short; the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy.
Fire the final bullet only when you are constantly hitting the Bull's eye, till then KEEP PRACTICING.
Failure establishes only this, that our determination to succeed was not strong enough.

Press +1 Kudos, if you think my post gave u a tiny tip.

I got a PM on this question. I'll definitely chime in, but let me start off by saying that this question should be done for fun. It is not an actual GMAT question in terms of style, rigor, and well...just about anything else. That does not mean we can't subject it to analysis. So here goes:

While FIFA world ranking may be imperfect, it is the only official measure of relative strength of soccer nations. However, since 1992, FIFA rankings have been a poor indicator of world cup success. In fact Germany, who was tipped to be winner in 1996 to clear even the first round.
Which option, if above statements are correct, is the correct inference here?

a) A team's performance on paper is not a guarantee of its success in field.

'On paper' seems odd. Can we assume 'on paper' is literal and that FIFA is 'on paper.' I don't know. If so, this would be valid.

b) FIFA should improve the rankings to make them more useful.

This is an opinion not an inference.

c) No team which has been tipped to win the world cup by FIFA based on its rankings has actually gone to win world cup.

The argument only says that FIFA ranking has been a 'poor indicator'.

d) FIFA rankings would have been a better indicator of world cup success if the rankings were perfected.

We can't conclude this. And what does it mean 'were perfected.'

e) Prior to 1992, FIFA rankings were a better indicator of the world cup success.

This seems very straightforward and hardly an inference, at least one you would see on the actual GMAT...but it is an inference nonetheless. It is sort of like saying John is over 5 feet tall. Therefore we can infer that he is not less than 5 ft. Also, the prompt says 'Since 1992, FIFA rankings...'. Therefore, before 1992 they were not a poor indicator. The use of the word 'since' shows that there were FIFA rankings before.

Anyhow, I guess (E) would be the answer, though one could make the argument for (A), depending on the nebulous term 'on paper.'

That said, don't worry about this question. Move on and spend your time with the official/reputable stuff. It'll help your score test day .

KUDOS is the good manner to help the entire community.