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 that the pool of elite sumo wrestlers is tight - knit and that even rival stables have close ties. This implies that the close relationship between sumo wrestlers could influence their behavior. The first option says "guaranteed enticement" which is too strong as the text only says "maybe he accepts a bribe". The third option about it being a dishonor is not mentioned. The fourth option about pressure to cheat to beat rival stables is not in line with the text which focuses on arrangements between wrestlers (not just rival stables). The second option, about the close relationship being an incentive to throw a match, is supported by the description of the tight - knit community and possible arrangements between wrestlers.

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.