Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 14:06 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 14:06
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
 1   2   3   4   
555-605 Level|   Logical Flaw|         
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 105,355
Own Kudos:
778,062
 [4]
Given Kudos: 99,964
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 105,355
Kudos: 778,062
 [4]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): City Y has never hosted a major inter 10 Jul 2025, 08:00
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
3
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
00:00
Start Timer
Pause Timer
Resume Timer
Show Answer
Hide
Show
History
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!

Difficulty:

35% (medium)

Question Stats:

81% (01:35) correct 19% (01:48) wrong based on 268 sessions

History

Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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

 

ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
D
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
Bunuel
User avatar
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 105,355
Own Kudos:
778,062
Given Kudos: 99,964
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 105,355
Kudos: 778,062
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): City Y has never hosted a major inter 10 Jul 2025, 08:30
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.
Show more

­

GMAT Club Official Explanation:



A. It confuses the Olympic Committee’s selection criteria with the priorities of individual bid committees. - The argument is mostly concerned with City Y's assessment of its own chances. It neither addresses the decision-making process of the Olympic Committee nor does it discusses priorities of 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. - This is partly correct that City Y's lack of experience is taken into account to decide its probable selection, but the wording is too strong in this option. The argument never claims that City Y won't get selected under any circumstances but it only highlights that its chances would be too low.

C. It overlooks the mere possibility that City Y might still be selected even if it hasn’t hosted a major event before. - The fact that something is possible doesn't explain why the given argument is flawed. This choice doesn't attack the committee's faulty inference and the argument never denies the possibility of City Y's selection instead it just concludes that the chances would be low.

D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes. - This describes the core flaw in the argument. Based on the past selection, it generalizes the trend without concluding whether the two events were casually linked or merely correlated.

E. It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so. - Argument never discusses City Y's interest in hosting sporting events, so this is, at best, a speculation and clearly out of scope for this discussion.

Answer: D
General Discussion
User avatar
Cana1766
User avatar
Joined: 26 May 2024
Last visit: 15 Nov 2025
Posts: 85
Own Kudos:
79
 [1]
Given Kudos: 11
Posts: 85
Kudos: 79
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): City Y has never hosted a major inter 10 Jul 2025, 08:19
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The main argument is that Y bid committee believes it has very little chance of being selected,because in the analysis only cities that hosted before won a bid.

The best flaw is stated in option D, it says this reasoning is based on checking similarity in previous outcomes without considering whether that was the actual reason for the outcome. It doesn't consider whether hosting past events was just coincidental or maybe advantageous to being selected.

Hence the answer is 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

 

Show more
User avatar
Heix
User avatar
Joined: 21 Feb 2024
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 361
Own Kudos:
153
 [1]
Given Kudos: 63
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
Schools: Ross MM "26 NUS Columbia '27
GMAT Focus 1: 485 Q76 V74 DI77
GPA: 3.4
WE:Accounting (Finance)
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: Ross MM "26 NUS Columbia '27
GMAT Focus 1: 485 Q76 V74 DI77
Posts: 361
Kudos: 153
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): City Y has never hosted a major inter 10 Jul 2025, 09:02
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The bid committee observes that the past five Olympic host cities had all hosted major sporting events within five years of their bids. Based on this pattern, they conclude that City Y has
"very little chance" of being selected since it hasn't hosted such an event.
The key flaw here is that the argument assumes that because all previous successful Olympic bids came from cities with prior hosting experience, this experience must be a requirement or essential factor for selection. However, this pattern could be coincidental or related to other factors that actually determined the selections.
The argument commits a logical flaw by assuming that correlation implies causation or necessity. Just because all previous successful cities had hosted events doesn't mean that hosting prior events is what caused them to be selected.
Answer choice D correctly identifies this flaw: "It relies on a similarity among preyious outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes." The committee observed a pattern (similarity) in previous successful bids but failed to establish whether having hosted previous events was actually essential to those cities' selection or merely coincidental.
The other options don't accurately describe the flaw in the reasoning:
* A: The argument doesn't confuse selection criteria with bid committee priorities.
* B: The argument doesn't treat lack of experience as "direct evidence" but rather as a statistical observation.
* C: While the argument does overlook this possibility, this isn't the central flaw in the reasoning structure.
* E: The argument doesn't make claims about cities interest in hosting events
User avatar
k11work
User avatar
Joined: 12 Jan 2025
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 119
Own Kudos:
92
 [1]
Given Kudos: 84
Status:Complete
Affiliations: -
-: -
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 119
Kudos: 92
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): City Y has never hosted a major inter 10 Jul 2025, 09:03
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A. It confuses the Olympic Committee’s selection criteria with the priorities of individual bid committees.
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.
Incorrect

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

D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes.
Correct - since it takes an evidence from the past to be a necessary condition without considering whether it is essential or not for the current outcome

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

Answer D
User avatar
A_Nishith
User avatar
Joined: 29 Aug 2023
Last visit: 12 Nov 2025
Posts: 455
Own Kudos:
199
 [1]
Given Kudos: 16
Posts: 455
Kudos: 199
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): City Y has never hosted a major inter 10 Jul 2025, 09:04
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The user is asking to identify a flaw in the reasoning of City Y's bid committee. Let's break down the committee's reasoning:

Premise: All successful Olympic bids in the past five Games came from cities that had hosted a major sporting event within five years of their bid.

Conclusion: City Y, having never hosted a major international sporting event, has very little chance of being selected.

The flaw lies in how the past observation is applied to City Y. Just because past successful bidders shared a characteristic (prior hosting experience) doesn't automatically mean that characteristic was a requirement or a cause of their success. It's possible that other factors were at play, or that the Olympic Committee's criteria could change, or that there might be exceptions.

Let's evaluate the options:

A. It confuses the Olympic Committee’s selection criteria with the priorities of individual bid committees. This is not the flaw. The reasoning is specifically about the Olympic Committee's selection (as inferred from past outcomes), not the bid committees' 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. While it does treat it as evidence, the flaw isn't just that it's "direct evidence." The core issue is the nature of that evidence and its causal link.

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 conclusion is overly deterministic based on an observation of past trends. It's a plausible flaw, but perhaps not the best or most precise one. The reasoning states "very little chance," not "no chance," so "mere possibility" might not fully capture the flaw.

D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes. This option precisely identifies the flaw. The committee observes a correlation (successful bids had prior experience) and assumes it's a causation or an essential condition for success. It doesn't consider if the prior hosting was truly a prerequisite or just a coincidental characteristic of those particular successful bidders. For example, maybe all those cities were also very large or had excellent infrastructure, and those were the essential factors, with hosting experience being a byproduct or unrelated.

E. It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so. This is irrelevant to the reasoning. The committee's concern is about being selected, not about City Y's interest level.

Option D best describes the logical fallacy: assuming that a consistent characteristic observed in past successful cases is a necessary and essential condition for future success, without exploring whether that characteristic was truly the determining factor.

Answer: D
User avatar
Archit3110
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2017
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 8,423
Own Kudos:
4,979
 [1]
Given Kudos: 243
Status:You learn more from failure than from success.
Location: India
Concentration: Sustainability, Marketing
GMAT Focus 1: 545 Q79 V79 DI73
GMAT Focus 2: 645 Q83 V82 DI81
GPA: 4
WE:Marketing (Energy)
GMAT Focus 2: 645 Q83 V82 DI81
Posts: 8,423
Kudos: 4,979
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): City Y has never hosted a major inter 10 Jul 2025, 09:05
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
IC City Y has never hosted a major international sporting event.

Premise : 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.

Conclusion : City Y’s bid committee believes it has very little chance of being selected to host the upcoming Games.

Weakening CR

A. It confuses the Olympic Committee’s selection criteria with the priorities of individual bid committees.
there is no set criteria discussed in 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.
this is somewhat true , but lack of hosting experience is not reason for not being selected.

C. It overlooks the mere possibility that City Y might still be selected even if it hasn’t hosted a major event before.
this is not for the reasoning being discussed

D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes.
This is true as the similarity of previous outcomes is considered that it will be true with City Y .... correct option

E. It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so.
there is no such info given

IMO OPTION D is correct
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

 

Show more
User avatar
iCheetaah
User avatar
Joined: 13 Nov 2021
Last visit: 17 Nov 2025
Posts: 81
Own Kudos:
72
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1
Location: India
Posts: 81
Kudos: 72
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): City Y has never hosted a major inter 10 Jul 2025, 09:07
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Let's look at the answer choices:

A. It confuses the Olympic Committee’s selection criteria with the priorities of individual bid committees.
  • There is no mention of the "priorities" of any bid committees. 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.
  • Distortion. The argument suggests that the committee believes it has a very little chance of being selected; however, this choice distorts the outcome to "will not be selected". 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 argument doesn't overlook this fact. Since the argument says that the committee believes in having very little chance of getting selected. Eliminate
D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes.
  • This brings out the flaw. Since the committe believes that they have a very little chance of winning and they base it on the fact that each successful winner in the past had >=1 sporting event in the bag, the logic discounts the fact that is even having a sporting event in the bag already essential to getting selected for the Olympics games. Keep
E. It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so.
  • Cities' (other than the one in question) interests in general are irrelevant. Eliminate

D seems to be the best choice.
User avatar
Jarvis07
User avatar
Joined: 06 Sep 2017
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 295
Own Kudos:
236
 [1]
Given Kudos: 160
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V41
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V41
Posts: 295
Kudos: 236
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): City Y has never hosted a major inter 10 Jul 2025, 09:21
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The bid committee assumes that because every past Olympic host had staged a major event within five years of bidding, that requirement must be what actually wins votes, in other words, they infer necessity from a mere pattern. Choice D captures this misstep.the committee relies on a similarity across past selections without showing that recent hosting was an essential, causal factor in those wins.
Choices A, B, C, and E miss the mark because the flaw isn’t about confusing whose priorities matter (A), nor simply mistaking inexperience for certain failure (B), nor ignoring the mere chance of success (C), nor assuming disinterest (E). The real error is drawing a causal rule from an observed pattern without proving that the pattern was essential, exactly what choice D highlights.

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

 

Show more
User avatar
Dipan0506
User avatar
Joined: 24 May 2021
Last visit: 17 Nov 2025
Posts: 72
Own Kudos:
14
 [1]
Given Kudos: 3
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Posts: 72
Kudos: 14
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): City Y has never hosted a major inter 10 Jul 2025, 09:23
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The paragraph states that to host an Olympic event, the host city must have held a major international sporting event within 5 years of its Olympic bid, which City Y has failed to do so before placing the bid.

Now coming to the answer:
A. No, it doesn’t confuse, rather it clearly states the selection criteria which is not sufficient enough to facilitate a flaw in the argument.
B. Yes, it does provide direct evidence for City Y to be selected to host the Olympics which is not sufficient enough to facilitate a flaw.
C. Yes, it overlooks the possibility of City Y ‘s selection for not hosting a major event before which doesn’t sufficiently provide evidence for the flaw.
D. This statement provides a logical flaw, as it relies on similarity among previous outcomes, whereas those outcomes may not be a resultant of those similarities.
E. Taking for granted with a pre requisite conditions doesn’t best suit for the logical flaw .

Hence Point D is the answer.
User avatar
Emkicheru
User avatar
Joined: 12 Sep 2023
Last visit: 12 Sep 2025
Posts: 119
Own Kudos:
22
Given Kudos: 11
Location: Kenya
Schools: Anderson (UCLA) Sloan (MIT) Columbia '27
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V48
GRE 1: Q167 V164
GPA: 3.7
Schools: Anderson (UCLA) Sloan (MIT) Columbia '27
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V48
GRE 1: Q167 V164
Posts: 119
Kudos: 22
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): City Y has never hosted a major inter 10 Jul 2025, 09:24
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

 

Show more
It is clear that it relies on past outcomes rather than consider the possible future outcomes hence option D
User avatar
MinhChau789
User avatar
Joined: 18 Aug 2023
Last visit: 17 Nov 2025
Posts: 132
Own Kudos:
140
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2
Posts: 132
Kudos: 140
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): City Y has never hosted a major inter 10 Jul 2025, 09:42
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Conclusion: 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.
There's no discussion about 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 is about the committee's belief based on some statistics correlation. It is probability, not firm confirmation.

C. It overlooks the mere possibility that City Y might still be selected even if it hasn’t hosted a major event before.
No, the argument is about "low" possibility

D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes.
Right answer. 5 previous events are also very weak statistically.

E. It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so.
Irrelevant
avatar
ManifestDreamMBA
avatar
Joined: 17 Sep 2024
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 1,282
Own Kudos:
784
 [1]
Given Kudos: 236
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Posts: 1,282
Kudos: 784
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): City Y has never hosted a major inter 10 Jul 2025, 09:46
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
City Y is just relying on the data to draw patterns, which might be coincidental. This might not be a mandate for the selection committee to award the bid.

Only D matches the logical flaw. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes.
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

 

Show more
User avatar
Missinga
User avatar
Joined: 20 Jan 2025
Last visit: 16 Nov 2025
Posts: 393
Own Kudos:
261
 [1]
Given Kudos: 29
Posts: 393
Kudos: 261
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): City Y has never hosted a major inter 10 Jul 2025, 09:52
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....... The argument is about the selection results, not about the difference in priorities between the selection committee and bid committees..........No
B. It incorrectly treats City Y’s lack of hosting experience as direct evidence that it will not be selected to host the Olympics......... City Y isn’t treating it as direct evidence .......No
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’s problem isn’t ignoring possibility, it’s about whether the pattern it relies on is valid as predictive reasoning.........No
D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes...........(Because all past successful bids had one common trait (recent hosting), that trait must be necessary for success, we don’t know whether it was necessary or not) ........Possible Answer
E. It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so.......No

D
User avatar
Ryga
User avatar
Joined: 12 Aug 2023
Last visit: 19 Aug 2025
Posts: 68
Own Kudos:
51
 [1]
Given Kudos: 5
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Leadership
Schools: INSEAD Jan '26 NUS '27 Stern '26
GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q90 V80 DI83
Schools: INSEAD Jan '26 NUS '27 Stern '26
GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q90 V80 DI83
Posts: 68
Kudos: 51
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): City Y has never hosted a major inter 10 Jul 2025, 09:54
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
A. It confuses the Olympic Committee’s selection criteria with the priorities of individual bid committees.
Not relevant. The argument is about outcomes, not motivations or criteria.

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 close, but the issue isn’t just that City Y lacks experience — it’s the faulty inference from correlation.

C. It overlooks the mere possibility that City Y might still be selected even if it hasn’t hosted a major event before.
True, but this is a weaker criticism — all probabilistic reasoning allows for possibility. The flaw is deeper.

D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes.
Yes! This directly points out the flaw: the argument assumes the common feature (hosting a major event) was necessary for success, without showing it caused the success. --> Answer

E. It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so.
Out of scope. The argument doesn’t say anything about interest.
User avatar
Suyash1331
User avatar
Joined: 01 Jul 2023
Last visit: 20 Oct 2025
Posts: 118
Own Kudos:
61
 [1]
Given Kudos: 22
Location: India
Schools: IIMA '26 IIM IIM Calcutta '26 Judge '26 ISB '27 Said '27
GMAT Focus 1: 575 Q65 V70 DI70
GMAT 1: 250 Q20 V34
GPA: 7
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: IIMA '26 IIM IIM Calcutta '26 Judge '26 ISB '27 Said '27
GMAT Focus 1: 575 Q65 V70 DI70
GMAT 1: 250 Q20 V34
Posts: 118
Kudos: 61
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): City Y has never hosted a major inter 10 Jul 2025, 10:09
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Quote:
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.
Show more
A: priorities of bid committees not known to us. Incorrect
B: The last line says "believes". so we cannot say that it takes it as direct evidence. Incorrect
C: It does not overlook completely. it just says that the probability of being selected is low. Incorrect
D: Correct. Previous similarity is taken into consideration without knowing whether it was essential or not. Correct
E: not mentioned anywhere about interest of cities. Incorrect
User avatar
LucasH20
User avatar
Joined: 13 Apr 2023
Last visit: 31 Aug 2025
Posts: 52
Own Kudos:
35
 [1]
Given Kudos: 384
Posts: 52
Kudos: 35
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): City Y has never hosted a major inter 10 Jul 2025, 10:16
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 bid committee is making an inference about the Olympic Committee's likely selection criteria based on past outcomes. While there might be a distinction, the core flaw isn't about whose priorities are being discussed, but how those priorities are inferred.

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 close but not precise enough. It's not necessarily "direct evidence," but rather an inference based on past patterns. The core issue is why that past pattern is being applied so strictly.

C. It overlooks the mere possibility that City Y might still be selected even if it hasn’t hosted a major event before.
While true that there's always a possibility, this option points out a general logical fallacy (ignoring possibility) rather than the specific flaw in reasoning based on the provided evidence. The reasoning isn't that it's impossible, but that it has "very little chance," which acknowledges a possibility, however slim.

D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes.
This precisely nails the flaw. The reasoning observes that all successful bids shared the characteristic of recent hosting experience. However, it assumes that this shared characteristic was a necessary and essential condition for their success, rather than merely a common co-occurrence. Perhaps those cities were chosen for other reasons, and their hosting experience was just a coincidental factor, or one of many contributing factors, not a prerequisite.

E. It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so.
The argument is about City Y's chances of being selected, not its interest in hosting. This option is irrelevant to the stated reasoning.

Regards,
Lucas
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

 

Show more
User avatar
Natansha
User avatar
Joined: 13 Jun 2019
Last visit: 15 Nov 2025
Posts: 150
Own Kudos:
29
 [1]
Given Kudos: 84
Posts: 150
Kudos: 29
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): City Y has never hosted a major inter 10 Jul 2025, 10:31
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
The arguement says that hosting at least one major sporting event within five years of its Olympic bid leads to a successful bid. But coincidence isn't always causation.Based on the observation, City Y’s bid committee believes it has very little chance of being selected to host the upcoming Games, it assumes that the same set of condition will apply to it as well, which might not be true.

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

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 arguement concludes that City Y has very little chance of being selected to host the upcoming Games, not that it doesn't have any chance of being selected.

C. It overlooks the mere possibility that City Y might still be selected even if it hasn’t hosted a major event before. The conclusion says that City Y has very little chance of being selected to host the upcoming Games, hence it doesn't overlook the possibility.

D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes. CORRECT. The arguement wrongly assumes that hosting a sports event within 5 yrs of a bid caused the cities to win the bid, which might not be true and this condition might not be applicable to city Y for which conditions might be different

E. It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so. Irrelevant, Interest of a city isn't mentioned anywhere
User avatar
HarshaBujji
User avatar
Joined: 29 Jun 2020
Last visit: 16 Nov 2025
Posts: 695
Own Kudos:
885
 [1]
Given Kudos: 247
Location: India
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 695
Kudos: 885
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): City Y has never hosted a major inter 10 Jul 2025, 10:33
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

 

Show more
Given information:

Premise: In the last 5 Olympic Games, every successful bid came from cities that had hosted at least one major sporting event within 5 years before their bid.
City Y has not hosted any such event.

Conclusion: City Y’s bid committee concludes it has very little chance of being selected.

Prethinking: We are looking for a flaw in the argument.

The prediction is based on correlation in past data.

But here’s the key flaw:
They’re assuming that because all past winning cities shared a certain trait, that trait must be necessary or required for winning — i.e., causal or essential — and City Y's absence of it means failure.

That is a classic correlation vs causation or pattern without causality flaw.

Now POE

A. It confuses the Olympic Committee’s selection criteria with the priorities of individual bid committees. Irrelavant
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 close, Hold it
C. It overlooks the mere possibility that City Y might still be selected even if it hasn’t hosted a major event before. Irrelavant
D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes. Hmm, Incline with our prthinking. Hold on
E. It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so. Irrelavant

B vs D, D is the best choice as it precisely catches the point.

Hence IMO D
User avatar
kvaishvik24
User avatar
Joined: 31 Mar 2025
Last visit: 15 Oct 2025
Posts: 81
Own Kudos:
65
 [1]
Given Kudos: 16
Posts: 81
Kudos: 65
 [1]
GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): City Y has never hosted a major inter 10 Jul 2025, 10:38
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Flaw: The argument assumes that a pattern in past outcomes (hosting a prior event led to successful bid) means that this factor is essential to winning. Maybe those cities won for another reasons.

A. It confuses the Olympic Committee’s selection criteria with the priorities of individual bid committees.
  • The bid committee is reasoning from data, not claiming its own priorities match those of the selection committee. 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.
  • Direct evidence is quite an extreme term, it's more about inferring neccesary conditions from past events.

C. It overlooks the mere possibility that City Y might still be selected even if it hasn’t hosted a major event before.
  • Just pointing out that something is possible doesn’t reveal a flaw in reasoning.
D. It relies on a similarity among previous outcomes without considering whether that similarity was essential to those outcomes.
  • This is exactly the flaw which we pre thought about.

E. It takes for granted that cities that haven’t hosted sporting events are automatically uninterested in doing so.
  • City Y is actively bidding, so this assumption is clearly not being made.
 1   2   3   4   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts