Question

Read this paragraph about the Olympics.

Is hosting the Olympic Games in any country really worth the cost? Putting cost aside for a moment, hosting the games brings great reputation and national pride. However, there are some extreme costs that must be calculated into a big decision like this. It is not just costing the city money while the games are in session, there are costs that happen beforehand and long after the games have finished. It all starts with cities bidding against each other, essentially bidding away their profit by promising fancy stadiums and efficient transportation. Once a city wins the bid, they get to host 17 days of festivals and athletic competitions, and then it is all over. The city is left with a dozen permanent venues that have to be kept up and maintained. This can cost an extra 10 to 20 million dollars a year. Ultimately, there is no way to calculate the profit at the end because of the significant cost to host the Olympic Games.


Which of the following would provide the most relevant information to support the inference that it is not worth it to host the Olympic Games?
A.

including a statistical analysis of the debt collected from Olympic host cities

B.

including a map that shows all the cities that have hosted the Olympics and their financial situation before hosting

C.

including a chart that shows the profit cities have collected since hosting the Olympic Games

D
.

including brief interviews from citizens who describe their experiences about the Olympics

Answer 1

A.

A statistical analysis of the debt collected from Olympic host cities directly quantifies the long-term financial burden and would best support the claim that hosting is not worth the cost. The map of pre-host finances (B) doesn't show post-hosting impact, the profit chart (C) could contradict the claim, and citizen interviews (D) are anecdotal rather than financial evidence.