Question

read the passage.
it was a mind - blowing day for the australian socceroos when they smashed a world record during the 2002 world cup qualifying round. the socceroos scored an unprecedented thirty - one goals against their competitors from american samoa, who failed to attain a single point during the game. while the outcome was stunning, the lopsided scoring was not actually a display of australian soccer dominance. instead, it is the bureaucratic changes creating a severe mismatch that are to blame for this unfortunate result.
shortly before the game, fifa, the international soccer association that organizes the world cup, changed eligibility and passport rules. this update disqualified nineteen american samoan players, leaving the goalkeeper as the only remaining player. their coach looked to their under - twenty national team for replacements, but most of those players were occupied with high school exams. that left a small group of amateur players, including three fifteen - year - olds, to play in the match. not only were the new players less experienced, but the american samoan team was also underfunded compared to australias team. these disadvantages contributed to american samoas overwhelming defeat.
in the first paragraph, the author argues that bureaucratic changes were solely to blame for the huge score discrepancy. what structural choice does the author make in the second paragraph that undermines this argument?
the author mentions a funding discrepancy between the two teams, indicating that there were multiple factors contributing to the lopsided score.
the author praises the remarkable skill of the australian players, implying that they dominated the game primarily because of their superior talent over soccer players from american samoa.
the author emphasizes the age of the players on the team from american samoa without providing details about the ages of the players on the australian socceroos team.
the author disputes the role that fifa officials played in disqualifying most of the american samoan players from participating in the match.

Explanation:

To solve this, we analyze each option:

• Option 1: The second paragraph mentions the funding discrepancy (American Samoa's team was underfunded) along with the bureaucratic change (FIFA's rule change). If there are multiple factors (funding + bureaucratic changes) contributing to the score, it undermines the first paragraph's claim that only bureaucratic changes were to blame.
• Option 2: The second paragraph does not praise Australian players' skill; it focuses on American Samoa's disadvantages.
• Option 3: The age of American Samoa's players is part of their disadvantages, but not providing Australian players' ages doesn't undermine the "bureaucratic changes only" argument.
• Option 4: The author explains FIFA's role, not disputes it, so this is incorrect.

So the correct option is the first one as it shows multiple factors (funding + bureaucratic) contributed, undermining the single - factor claim.

Answer:

The author mentions a funding discrepancy between the two teams, indicating that there were multiple factors contributing to the lopsided score.