Question

read the excerpt from freakonomics. its 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? the offering of a bribe is a guaranteed enticement for a champion sumo wrestler to purposely lose a match in a tournament. the close relationship between sumo wrestlers could be an incentive for an elite wrestler to throw a match he doesnt need to win. because sumo wrestlers have strong social ties, it is a dishonor to throw a match in a tournament. there is great pressure for sumo wrestlers to cheat in order to beat wrestlers from rival stables.

Explanation:

The text mentions the tight - knit community of sumo wrestlers and how they fight each other regularly and are part of stables with close ties. This implies that relationships could be an incentive for throwing a match. The first option is too extreme as it says a bribe is a "guaranteed" enticement. The third option goes against what the text implies about incentives for throwing a match. The fourth option is not supported as the text focuses on incentives for throwing a match rather than pressure to cheat to win against rivals.

Answer:

The close relationship between sumo wrestlers could be an incentive for an elite wrestler to throw a match he doesn't need to win.