Read the excerpt from Freakonomics. It’s worth thinking about the incentive a wrestler might have to throw a match. Maybe he accepts a bribe (which would obviously not be recorded in the data). Or perhaps some other arrangement is made between the two wrestlers. Keep in mind that the pool of elite sumo wrestlers is extraordinarily tight-knit. Each of the sixty-six elite wrestlers fights fifteen of the others in a tournament every two months. Furthermore, each wrestler belongs to a stable that is typically managed by a former sumo champion, so even the rival stables have close ties. Which of the following claims is best supported by the evidence in this excerpt?
Answer
A
The offering of a bribe is a guaranteed enticement for a champion sumo wrestler to purposely lose a match in a tournament.
B
The close relationship between sumo wrestlers could be an incentive for an elite wrestler to throw a match he doesn’t need to win.
C
Because sumo wrestlers have strong social ties, it is a dishonor to throw a match in a tournament.
D
There is great pressure for sumo wrestlers to cheat in order to beat wrestlers from rival stables.
Explanation
The excerpt emphasizes that elite wrestlers compete with one another repeatedly and belong to stables whose members and managers have close ties. Those relationships could give a wrestler a reason to help another wrestler by losing a match, especially if he does not need the win himself. The excerpt says a bribe is possible, not guaranteed, and it does not claim that social ties create pressure to cheat against rival stables.
AI-written and checked against the verified answer.