Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 15:46 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 15:46
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
Rahul_Sharma23
Joined: 05 Aug 2023
Last visit: 12 Nov 2025
Posts: 114
Own Kudos:
82
 [1]
Given Kudos: 17
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q87 V83 DI83
GPA: 2.5
Products:
GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q87 V83 DI83
Posts: 114
Kudos: 82
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
Kinshook
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 03 Jun 2019
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,793
Own Kudos:
5,508
 [1]
Given Kudos: 161
Location: India
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34
WE:Engineering (Transportation)
Products:
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V34
Posts: 5,793
Kudos: 5,508
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
tgsankar10
Joined: 27 Mar 2024
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 281
Own Kudos:
390
 [1]
Given Kudos: 83
Location: India
Posts: 281
Kudos: 390
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
SRIVISHUDDHA22
Joined: 08 Jan 2025
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 88
Own Kudos:
55
 [1]
Given Kudos: 268
Location: India
Schools: ISB '26
GPA: 9
Products:
Schools: ISB '26
Posts: 88
Kudos: 55
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
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.
B. It incorrectly treats City Y’s lack of hosting experience as direct evidence that it will not be selected to host the Olympics.
C. It overlooks the mere possibility that City Y might still be selected even if it hasn’t hosted a major event before.
D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes.
E. It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so.


 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 


Attachment:
GMAT-Club-Forum-o80trwro.png
GMAT-Club-Forum-o80trwro.png [ 219.28 KiB | Viewed 205 times ]
User avatar
UfuomaOh
Joined: 14 Sep 2023
Last visit: 17 Nov 2025
Posts: 83
Own Kudos:
50
 [1]
Given Kudos: 14
Products:
Posts: 83
Kudos: 50
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.

Option D is the most appropriate option because it speaks to the conclusion of the anlysis done in the past five Olympic Games . The correlation estabished between the host success in the bid to the hosting of a previous major event by the host. Concludes based on this that City Y has very little chance of winning the bid.

Option D is correct because it correctly states that the conclusion relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes which is the flaw in the conclusion.
User avatar
missionmba2025
Joined: 07 May 2023
Last visit: 07 Sep 2025
Posts: 341
Own Kudos:
427
 [1]
Given Kudos: 52
Location: India
Posts: 341
Kudos: 427
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
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.
B. It incorrectly treats City Y’s lack of hosting experience as direct evidence that it will not be selected to host the Olympics.
C. It overlooks the mere possibility that City Y might still be selected even if it hasn’t hosted a major event before.
D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes.
E. It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so.


 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 


Conclusion of bid committee: City Y has very little chance of being selected to host the upcoming Games.
Reasoning: 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 and City Y has never hosted a major international sporting event.

A. It confuses the Olympic Committee’s selection criteria with the priorities of individual bid committees.

INCORRECT: No information on priority has been provided. The information is not inline.

B. It incorrectly treats City Y’s lack of hosting experience as direct evidence that it will not be selected to host the Olympics.

INCORRECT: The conclusion follows from the observation made by the bid committee that in the past five years each successful bid came from a city that had hosted at least one major sporting event within five years of its Olympic bid. Hence, this option is not a flaw.

C. It overlooks the mere possibility that City Y might still be selected even if it hasn’t hosted a major event before.

INCORRECT: This is opposite to the conclusion. Eliminate.

D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes.

CORRECT: The conclusion is made on the pattern observed. This is a correct.

E. It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so.

INCORRECT: No such mention. Eliminate E.

Option D
User avatar
Rahilgaur
Joined: 24 Jun 2024
Last visit: 17 Nov 2025
Posts: 103
Own Kudos:
74
 [1]
Given Kudos: 45
GMAT Focus 1: 575 Q81 V82 DI72
Products:
GMAT Focus 1: 575 Q81 V82 DI72
Posts: 103
Kudos: 74
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
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 ?
Just because all the five countries that won Olympic bid happens to host a major sporting event before, author is taking the common point and considering it to be the reason that the country won the bid which can be pure coincidence or there might be other criteria which is not discussed here.

A. It confuses the Olympic Committee’s selection criteria with the priorities of individual bid committees.- Priorities of individual bid committees is not relevant to the above argument.

B. It incorrectly treats City Y’s lack of hosting experience as direct evidence that it will not be selected to host the Olympics. - Author is not stating they won't be selected but have little chances.

C. It overlooks the mere possibility that City Y might still be selected even if it hasn’t hosted a major event before. - Not relevant to the flaw in the logic

D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes.- Exactly a mere similarity cannot be considered as the reason of selection. Answer.

E. It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so. - Not relevant.
User avatar
AVMachine
Joined: 03 May 2024
Last visit: 26 Aug 2025
Posts: 190
Own Kudos:
154
 [1]
Given Kudos: 40
Posts: 190
Kudos: 154
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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. Correct

E. 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.


 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 

User avatar
SaKVSF16
Joined: 31 May 2024
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 86
Own Kudos:
79
 [1]
Given Kudos: 41
Products:
Posts: 86
Kudos: 79
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Argument says that since there is a pattern in the past winners, this pattern must be a necessary condition to win. Since City Y does not have the same feature, its chances of winning are much lesser.


A. It confuses the Olympic Committee’s selection criteria with the priorities of individual bid committees - argument's focus is on whether City Y has a chance or not, not what the Olympic Committee's selection criteria is. 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 - argument does not say it will not be selected, it says there is "little chance" so it is not completely ruling out the possibility, only decreasing the probability.

C. It overlooks the mere possibility that City Y might still be selected even if it hasn’t hosted a major event before - seems like a close answer- keep for now

D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes - this exactly matches the flaw- just because there was a similarity in the previous outcomes- that they had hosted an event before - the argument assumes that this must be a requirement for hosting the Olympics and based on this assumption, reduces City's chance of winning the bid. But it may just be a pattern and not a necessary requirement. This portrays the flaw much more clearly than C in my opinion.

E. It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so - interest in hosting events is not addressed by the argument and does not contribute to the main conclusion of the argument

Answer is D
User avatar
1111fate
Joined: 19 Oct 2021
Last visit: 16 Nov 2025
Posts: 81
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 688
Location: India
Posts: 81
Kudos: 63
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The Answer is A
The premise states that City Y never hosted a major international sporting event. An analysis of the past five of Olympic Games is cited to state the chance of successful bid comes from a city that had hosted at least one major sporting event within five years of its Olympic bid, this is used to conclude that City Y’s bid wont be selected to host the upcoming Games.
A correctly gives the flaw in reasoning that It confuses the Olympic Committee’s selection criteria with the priorities of individual bid committees.
B is wrong because it cites the lack of hosting experience. However the flaw is not over experience but over co relating olympic selection criteria and to that of the international sporting event. Both are different and cannot be used interchangeably.
C is wrong as it states the mere possibility that City Y might still be selected even if it hasn’t hosted a major event before. which is irrelevant
D-is wrong as it relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes. There is no stated similarity over the selection criteria
E-It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so-is irrelevant
User avatar
Abhiswarup
Joined: 07 Apr 2024
Last visit: 08 Sep 2025
Posts: 178
Own Kudos:
154
 [1]
Given Kudos: 42
Location: India
Posts: 178
Kudos: 154
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.

The passage tells that City Y has never hosted any international sporting event and analysis of the previous olympic games it has been found that hosting ity has hosted at least one major sporting event. As City Y has not hosted any international sporting event, bid committee of Y believes that City Y has very little chance of getting slected as host for the upcoming event.

Which of the following best points out a flaw in the reasoning above? Lets analyze options

A. It confuses the Olympic Committee’s selection criteria with the priorities of individual bid committees.
Irrelevant, there is no confusion in the selection criteria and priorities of individual committee. Eliminate
B. It incorrectly treats City Y’s lack of hosting experience as direct evidence that it will not be selected to host the Olympics.
Yeah they incorrectly treat City Y's lack of hosting but there is no direct evidence for the not hosting olympics. Eliminate
C. It overlooks the mere possibility that City Y might still be selected even if it hasn’t hosted a major event before.
The committee has overlooked possibility of selection but it is not complete in pointing out flaw. Keep this option
D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes.
This option points tout the flaw that similar past events will determine the future outcomes without considering whether they are essential or not. Keep this option
E. It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so.
There was no point of uninterest. Eliminate
Between option C and D. Option D is more comprehensive and directly points out flaw.

Answer should be D.
User avatar
andreagonzalez2k
Joined: 15 Feb 2021
Last visit: 26 Jul 2025
Posts: 308
Own Kudos:
497
 [1]
Given Kudos: 14
Posts: 308
Kudos: 497
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A. It confuses the Olympic Committee’s selection criteria with the priorities of individual bid committees.
This suggests a mix-up between what the Olympic Committee looks for and what bid committees focus on. The argument doesn't seem to confuse these, it's about the Olympic Committee's past selections.

B. It incorrectly treats City Y’s lack of hosting experience as direct evidence that it will not be selected to host the Olympics.
This is saying that the argument is treating the lack of experience as definitive proof of failure. The argument says "very little chance", not absolute certainty.

C. It overlooks the mere possibility that City Y might still be selected even if it hasn’t hosted a major event before.
This points out that the argument ignores the chance that an exception could occur. But it is not true, the argument says "very little chance", not absolute certainty.

D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes.
This is saying that just because past successful bids had this trait, it doesn't mean the trait was essential for success. This is a strong flaw, correlation doesn't equal causation. Maybe hosting a prior event wasn't the reason they were selected. CORRECT

E. It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so.
The argument isn't about interest, it's about capability or likelihood based on past patterns.

IMO D
User avatar
Punt
Joined: 09 Jul 2024
Last visit: 11 Nov 2025
Posts: 36
Own Kudos:
29
 [1]
Given Kudos: 15
Location: India
Posts: 36
Kudos: 29
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
So, we are supposed to look for the options that points out the flaw in the reasoning of the City Y’s bid committee to assume the chance of not get selected.

A. It confuses the Olympic Committee’s selection criteria with the priorities of individual bid committees.
- Out of scope. The reasoning is about drawing conclusion from past patterns.

B. It incorrectly treats City Y’s lack of hosting experience as direct evidence that it will not be selected to host the Olympics.
- The committee doesn’t treat it direct evidence. It assumes that there is little chance.

C. It overlooks the mere possibility that City Y might still be selected even if it hasn’t hosted a major event before.
- It may be true, but it is probability, not a flaw in reasoning.

D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes.
- It makes sense. This causation vs. correlation error. It points out that may be not hosting a event is similarities in the past years, but it doesn’t mean that this is an essential criteria.

E. It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so.
- Nope, the reasoning doesn’t implicate any of this.

Ans: D


Bunuel
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.
B. It incorrectly treats City Y’s lack of hosting experience as direct evidence that it will not be selected to host the Olympics.
C. It overlooks the mere possibility that City Y might still be selected even if it hasn’t hosted a major event before.
D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes.
E. It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so.


 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 

User avatar
muuss
Joined: 10 Aug 2024
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 108
Own Kudos:
83
 [1]
Given Kudos: 38
GMAT Focus 1: 615 Q84 V81 DI76
Products:
GMAT Focus 1: 615 Q84 V81 DI76
Posts: 108
Kudos: 83
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A. It confuses the Olympic Committee’s selection criteria with the priorities of individual bid committees.- Irrelevant, we aren't talking about the Olympic Committee’s selection
B. It incorrectly treats City Y’s lack of hosting experience as direct evidence that it will not be selected to host the Olympics.- No, it is not direct evidence but a strong inference
C. It overlooks the mere possibility that City Y might still be selected even if it hasn’t hosted a major event before.- Need to find a flaw. This is one of the possibilities
D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes.- Correct, we do not know if hosting a major event within 5 years is a mandate, so this is the flaw
E. It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so.- We are not talking about the interest here.
IMO:D
User avatar
Manu1995
Joined: 30 Aug 2021
Last visit: 11 Nov 2025
Posts: 81
Own Kudos:
55
 [1]
Given Kudos: 18
Posts: 81
Kudos: 55
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A. It confuses the Olympic Committee’s selection criteria with the priorities of individual bid committees.
The argument is about past trends and success, not confusion between two groups' priorities.

B. It incorrectly treats City Y’s lack of hosting experience as direct evidence that it will not be selected to host the Olympics.
The argument uses historical pattern as a basis, not direct evidence.

C. It overlooks the mere possibility that City Y might still be selected even if it hasn’t hosted a major event before.
While valid, it only says the argument ignores a possibility. It doesn’t expose the core logical flaw.
D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes.
This clearly points out the flaw: the argument assumes that past success factors (like hosting events) were required, without proving they were the reason for success.

E. It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so.
The argument never discusses interest or motivation.

Option D is correct
User avatar
harshnaicker
Joined: 13 May 2024
Last visit: 25 Sep 2025
Posts: 84
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 35
Posts: 84
Kudos: 60
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Statement A: Priorities of individual bid committees is not discussed. ELIMINATE.
Statement B: City Y's bid committee is justified in being skeptical about their chances given the analysis of past five games. But this is not th emost blatant flow.
Statement C: This is a very weak statement and cannot be taken as a blatant flaw.
Statement D: This is the perfect candidate. The fact that each successful bid came from a city that had hosted at least one major sporting event within five years of its Olympic bid could be a coincidence or ONE of the MANY factors contributing to them getting selected but not essential. KEEP.
Statement E: This does not have any bearing to their reasoning. At best, it might suggest that there might be a bid where nobody but them bids which is a far fetched idea.

Answer is D.
Bunuel
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.
B. It incorrectly treats City Y’s lack of hosting experience as direct evidence that it will not be selected to host the Olympics.
C. It overlooks the mere possibility that City Y might still be selected even if it hasn’t hosted a major event before.
D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes.
E. It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so.


 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 

User avatar
sanjitscorps18
Joined: 26 Jan 2019
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 635
Own Kudos:
623
 [1]
Given Kudos: 128
Location: India
Schools: IMD'26
Products:
Schools: IMD'26
Posts: 635
Kudos: 623
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Bunuel
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.
B. It incorrectly treats City Y’s lack of hosting experience as direct evidence that it will not be selected to host the Olympics.
C. It overlooks the mere possibility that City Y might still be selected even if it hasn’t hosted a major event before.
D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes.
E. It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so.


 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 


A. It confuses the Olympic Committee’s selection criteria with the priorities of individual bid committees.
--> It's not a priority but an observation

B. It incorrectly treats City Y’s lack of hosting experience as direct evidence that it will not be selected to host the Olympics.
--> It says low chances, not rejection

C. It overlooks the mere possibility that City Y might still be selected even if it hasn’t hosted a major event before.
--> They don't overlook this. They say its bleak

D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes.
--> Correct. The assumption of considering a similarity as a necessary criterion is the flaw.

E. It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so.
--> Irrelevant. The city is bidding.

Option D
User avatar
Elite097
Joined: 20 Apr 2022
Last visit: 08 Oct 2025
Posts: 771
Own Kudos:
553
 [1]
Given Kudos: 346
Location: India
GPA: 3.64
Posts: 771
Kudos: 553
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A. The flaw is not about confusion between two groups.
B. Flaw is more about assuming that past patterns are rules
C. It’s a weak flaw although this might have been ignored
D. That correlation is not necessarily meant to be causation so this is the correct flaw
E. Wasn’t implied

Ans D
User avatar
adityaprateek15
Joined: 26 May 2023
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 268
Own Kudos:
104
 [1]
Given Kudos: 309
Location: India
GPA: 2.7
Products:
Posts: 268
Kudos: 104
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Correlation à Causation (One of the most commonly tested skills on GMAT)

The bidding committee assumes that because all past successful bidders had hosted a major event recently, this characteristic is a necessity for winning a bid. Just because there was a mere correlation b/w hosting a major sporting event within five years (X) and winning a bid (Y), it doesn’t mean that X caused Y.

A. It confuses the Olympic Committee’s selection criteria with the priorities of individual bid committees. The flaw in the committee’s observation isn't about confusion between criteria and priorities. Incorrect.

B. It incorrectly treats City Y’s lack of hosting experience as direct evidence that it will not be selected to host the Olympics. The committee’s observation is based on recent trend and it doesn’t use this trend to directly prove its observation. Incorrect.

C. It overlooks the mere possibility that City Y might still be selected even if it hasn’t hosted a major event before. The committee doesn’t overlook the possibility. It makes a contrary observation based on the recent trends. This choice doesn’t address the flaw in the reasoning. Incorrect.

D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes. This matches our pre-thinking. The committee considers condition X as a necessity for Y. Correct.

E. It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so. This option is irrelevant. The committee doesn’t comment or make observation about city’s preliminary interest in hosting an event. Incorrect.

Option D

Bunuel
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.
B. It incorrectly treats City Y’s lack of hosting experience as direct evidence that it will not be selected to host the Olympics.
C. It overlooks the mere possibility that City Y might still be selected even if it hasn’t hosted a major event before.
D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes.
E. It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so.


 


This question was provided by GMAT Club
for the GMAT Club Olympics Competition

Win over $30,000 in prizes such as Courses, Tests, Private Tutoring, and more

 

User avatar
LastHero
Joined: 15 Dec 2024
Last visit: 11 Nov 2025
Posts: 134
Own Kudos:
147
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 134
Kudos: 147
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A. It confuses the Olympic Committee’s selection criteria with the priorities of individual bid committees.
Irrelevant. The argument is about past data, not about confusing criteria with priorities.

B. It incorrectly treats City Y’s lack of hosting experience as direct evidence that it will not be selected to host the Olympics.
"it will not be selected" is not the same as "low chaces".

C. It overlooks the mere possibility that City Y might still be selected even if it hasn’t hosted a major event before.
The argument doesn't completely overlook the possibility, it just concludes chances are very low.

D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes.
The argument notes a pattern but doesn't establish that pattern was essential or just coincidental.

E. It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so.
Irrelevant. The argument isn't about interest.

The right answer is D
   1   2   3   4   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
188 posts