Last visit was: 23 Apr 2026, 06:13

It is currently 23 Apr 2026, 06:13

Toolkit

Practice Tests

Critical Reasoning (CR)

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

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Apr 23
Free full-length test!
08:00 PM PDT
-
09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 23
A Non-Native’s Journey to GMAT 695 with V88 (99th percentile)
01:30 AM EDT
-
02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 25
From ‘GMAT Is Not for Me’ to a 695— Beating Her Target by 50 Points
12:30 AM EDT
-
01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 26
Score High on the GMAT with Target Test Prep
10:00 AM EDT
-
11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 27
Try OnDemand GMAT Masterclass
11:00 AM EDT
-
12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 28
Join - GMAT Day!
08:00 AM PDT
-
11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.

Back to Forum

Create Topic

GMAT Club Olympics 2025 (Day 9): City Y has never hosted a major inter

1 2 3 4

Bunuel

Math Expert

Joined: 02 Sep 2009

Last visit: 23 Apr 2026

Posts: 109,778

Own Kudos:

810,776

[4]

Given Kudos: 105,853

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 109,778

Kudos: 810,776

[4]

10 Jul 2025, 08:00

Kudos

Bookmarks

00:00

Start Timer

Pause Timer

Resume Timer

Show Answer

Hide

Show

History

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:

80% (01:35) correct

20% (01:50) wrong

based on 286 sessions

History

Date

Time

Result

Not Attempted Yet

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 Answer

Official Answer

Most Helpful Reply

Bunuel

Math Expert

Joined: 02 Sep 2009

Last visit: 23 Apr 2026

Posts: 109,778

Own Kudos:

810,776

Given Kudos: 105,853

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 109,778

Kudos: 810,776

10 Jul 2025, 08:30

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

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

Cana1766

Joined: 26 May 2024

Last visit: 22 Apr 2026

Posts: 85

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 12

Posts: 85

Kudos: 80

[1]

10 Jul 2025, 08:19

Kudos

Bookmarks

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

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

Heix

Joined: 21 Feb 2024

Last visit: 13 Apr 2026

Posts: 460

Own Kudos:

165

[1]

Given Kudos: 63

Location: India

Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship

Schools: Ross MM "26 NUS Columbia '27

GMAT Focus 1: 485 Q76 V74 DI77 Verified score

GPA: 3.4

WE:Accounting (Finance)

Products:

Schools: Ross MM "26 NUS Columbia '27

GMAT Focus 1: 485 Q76 V74 DI77 Verified score

Posts: 460

Kudos: 165

[1]

10 Jul 2025, 09:02

Kudos

Bookmarks

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

k11work

Joined: 12 Jan 2025

Last visit: 18 Nov 2025

Posts: 119

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 84

Status:Complete

Affiliations: -

-: -

Products:

Posts: 119

Kudos: 96

[1]

10 Jul 2025, 09:03

Kudos

Bookmarks

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

A_Nishith

Joined: 29 Aug 2023

Last visit: 12 Nov 2025

Posts: 452

Own Kudos:

203

[1]

Given Kudos: 16

Posts: 452

Kudos: 203

[1]

10 Jul 2025, 09:04

Kudos

Bookmarks

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

Archit3110

Major Poster

Joined: 18 Aug 2017

Last visit: 23 Apr 2026

Posts: 8,628

Own Kudos:

5,190

[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 Verified score

GMAT Focus 2: 645 Q83 V82 DI81 Verified score

GPA: 4

WE:Marketing (Energy)

Products:

GMAT Focus 2: 645 Q83 V82 DI81 Verified score

Posts: 8,628

Kudos: 5,190

[1]

10 Jul 2025, 09:05

Kudos

Bookmarks

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

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

iCheetaah

Joined: 13 Nov 2021

Last visit: 23 Apr 2026

Posts: 81

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 1

Location: India

Products:

Posts: 81

Kudos: 72

[1]

10 Jul 2025, 09:07

Kudos

Bookmarks

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.

Jarvis07

Joined: 06 Sep 2017

Last visit: 20 Apr 2026

Posts: 306

Own Kudos:

241

[1]

Given Kudos: 163

GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V41 Verified score

Posts: 306

Kudos: 241

[1]

10 Jul 2025, 09:21

Kudos

Bookmarks

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

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

Dipan0506

Joined: 24 May 2021

Last visit: 10 Feb 2026

Posts: 72

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 3

Posts: 72

Kudos: 14

[1]

10 Jul 2025, 09:23

Kudos

Bookmarks

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.

Emkicheru

Joined: 12 Sep 2023

Last visit: 12 Sep 2025

Posts: 119

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 11

Location: Kenya

Schools: Anderson (UCLA) Sloan (MIT) Columbia '27

GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V48 Verified score

GRE 1: Q167 V164 Verified score

GPA: 3.7

Schools: Anderson (UCLA) Sloan (MIT) Columbia '27

GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V48 Verified score

GRE 1: Q167 V164 Verified score

Posts: 119

Kudos: 22

10 Jul 2025, 09:24

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

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

It is clear that it relies on past outcomes rather than consider the possible future outcomes hence option D

MinhChau789

Joined: 18 Aug 2023

Last visit: 12 Apr 2026

Posts: 132

Own Kudos:

140

[1]

Given Kudos: 2

Posts: 132

Kudos: 140

[1]

10 Jul 2025, 09:42

Kudos

Bookmarks

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

ManifestDreamMBA

Joined: 17 Sep 2024

Last visit: 21 Feb 2026

Posts: 1,387

Own Kudos:

897

[1]

Given Kudos: 243

Posts: 1,387

Kudos: 897

[1]

10 Jul 2025, 09:46

Kudos

Bookmarks

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

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

Missinga

Joined: 20 Jan 2025

Last visit: 10 Mar 2026

Posts: 404

Own Kudos:

267

[1]

Given Kudos: 29

Posts: 404

Kudos: 267

[1]

10 Jul 2025, 09:52

Kudos

Bookmarks

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

Ryga

Joined: 12 Aug 2023

Last visit: 19 Aug 2025

Posts: 68

Own Kudos:

[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 Verified score

Schools: INSEAD Jan '26 NUS '27 Stern '26

GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q90 V80 DI83 Verified score

Posts: 68

Kudos: 51

[1]

10 Jul 2025, 09:54

Kudos

Bookmarks

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.

Suyash1331

Joined: 01 Jul 2023

Last visit: 20 Oct 2025

Posts: 121

Own Kudos:

[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 Verified score

GMAT 1: 250 Q20 V34 Verified score

GPA: 7

Products:

Schools: IIMA '26 IIM IIM Calcutta '26 Judge '26 ISB '27 Said '27

GMAT Focus 1: 575 Q65 V70 DI70 Verified score

GMAT 1: 250 Q20 V34 Verified score

Posts: 121

Kudos: 63

[1]

10 Jul 2025, 10:09

Kudos

Bookmarks

Quote:

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

LucasH20

Joined: 13 Apr 2023

Last visit: 31 Aug 2025

Posts: 52

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 384

Posts: 52

Kudos: 35

[1]

10 Jul 2025, 10:16

Kudos

Bookmarks

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

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

Natansha

Joined: 13 Jun 2019

Last visit: 11 Mar 2026

Posts: 195

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 84

Posts: 195

Kudos: 65

[1]

10 Jul 2025, 10:31

Kudos

Bookmarks

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

HarshaBujji

Joined: 29 Jun 2020

Last visit: 23 Apr 2026

Posts: 723

Own Kudos:

906

[1]

Given Kudos: 247

Location: India

Products:

Posts: 723

Kudos: 906

[1]

10 Jul 2025, 10:33

Kudos

Bookmarks

Bunuel

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

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

kvaishvik24

Joined: 31 Mar 2025

Last visit: 03 Mar 2026

Posts: 81

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 16

Posts: 81

Kudos: 65

[1]

10 Jul 2025, 10:38

Kudos

Bookmarks

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.