Sports team owner: Government antitrust regulations are designed to

The author of the argument concludes the following:

Thus, no antitrust regulations are needed to ensure healthy business competition among professional sports enterprises.

The support for the conclusion is the following:

In the case of professional sports teams, which are business enterprises, sports competition is their main product and thus an essential part of their business competition. Delivering exciting competition on the field of play is needed to help the teams profit from media-broadcast rights and sales of branded sports items.

We see that the author has reasoned that, because "an essential part of their business competition" is "needed to help the teams profit," "no antitrust regulations are needed to ensure healthy business competition among professional sports enterprises."

The correct answer must point out a flaw in that reasoning.

A. fails to consider that government regulation of competition occurs in some businesses that provide services rather than manufactured goods

It's true that the argument does involve making the case that antitrust regulation of a type of business that does not provide manufactured goods, professional sports teams, is not needed.

However, in making the argument, the author does not do what this choice says.

Rather, the author makes a case for not regulating professional sports teams even if it is the case that "government regulation of competition occurs in some businesses that provide services."

B. concludes, only from the claim that one aspect of professional sports teams' competition requires no antitrust regulation, that no other aspect of their business does

In analyzing the argument, we see that integral to the evidence provided in support of the conclusion is the following:

In the case of professional sports teams, which are business enterprises, sports competition is their main product and thus an essential part of their business competition.

Notice that the argument describes sports competition as the "main product" and "an essential part" of the business of professional sports teams. Thus, we see that this integral component of the evidence is about only PART of the business of professional sports teams. After all, the "main product" is not all of the products of their businesses, and "an essential part" is only part of their business.

So, we can see that the argument arrives at the conclusion that antitrust regulations aren't needed to ensure healthy business competition among professional sports enterprises overall on the basis of information about only part, i.e., "an aspect," of what these enterprises do.

In other words, a broad, general conclusion is supported by only narrow evidence, meaning that the conclusion goes beyond what the evidence clearly supports.

Thus, we can see that this choice points out a way in which the argument is flawed.

C. fails to consider that government antitrust regulations are primarily intended to be in the interest of consumers rather than in the interest of the businesses regulated

This choice is incorrect because it does not accurately describe what the argument does.

Reviewing the passage, we see that it says the following:

Such regulations are primarily intended to help consumers by ensuring healthy competition.

So, the argument clearly DOES consider "that government antitrust regulations are primarily intended to be in the interest of consumers."

Since this choice conflicts with what the passage does, it's clearly incorrect.

D. presumes, without providing justification, that a professional sports team can gain a significant business advantage through consistently strong competition in sports events

Notice that the point of the argument is that, antitrust regulation of professional sports teams is not needed because professional sports teams will NOT gain excessive business advantages.

Thus, in saying that the argument presumes that "a professional sports team CAN gain a significant business advantage," this choice basically goes against the point of the argument.

So, this choice doesn't accurately describe what the argument does and thus cannot describe a flaw in the argument.

E. makes no distinction, explicit or implicit, between team-based sports competition and other types of sports competition

It's true that the argument makes no distinction between team-based sports competition and other types of sports competition. However, making such a distinction is not necessary for the argument to work. After all, the argument is about the business dynamics among professional sports teams only, and the information provided about those types of businesses is sufficient for the argument to work.

So, the fact that the argument makes no distinction between team-based sports competition and other types of sports competition is not a flaw in the argument.

The correct answer is