City Y has never hosted a major international sporting event. An analysis of the past five Olympic Games reveals that, without exception, each successful bid came from a city that had hosted at least one major sporting event within five years of its Olympic bid. Based on this observation, City Y’s bid committee believes it has very little chance of being selected to host the upcoming Games.
Which of the following best points out a flaw in the reasoning above?
A. It confuses the Olympic Committee’s selection criteria with the priorities of individual bid committees.
Out of Scope, they aren't depending on this. Irrelevant.
B. It incorrectly treats City Y’s lack of hosting experience as direct evidence that it will not be selected to host the Olympics.
Nowhere in the passage does it mention that it will not be selected as per the committee, Irrelevant.
C. It overlooks the mere possibility that City Y might still be selected even if it hasn’t hosted a major event before.
They have considered it, that's why they mentioned a very little chance, irrelevant.
D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes.
Now, this is a balanced choice and directly understanding the situation. CorrectE. It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so.
No they have not done this, even they have done opposite of this. irrelevant.