Question

in the second - to - last paragraph, the author mentions the \gimmicks\ of the male luchadores in order to suggest that
a male luchadores are a low - brow form of entertainment compared with the cholitas luchadoras, since the luchadores rely on gimmicks.
b the critique that cholitas luchadoras are \all show, no ability\ is hypocritical, since luchadores can also prioritize showmanship over technical skill.
c promoters who are too critical of luchadoras might also risk alienating luchadores, since they use similar performance elements.
d the critique that cholitas luchadoras prioritize showmanship over technical wrestling skills may be a valid critique of their performances.

Explanation:

To solve this, we analyze each option:

• Option A: The passage likely doesn't compare male luchadores as "low - brow" to cholitas; the focus is on the hypocrisy of critiques, not a hierarchy of entertainment, so A is incorrect.
• Option B: If male luchadores use gimmicks (showmanship) and cholitas are criticized for "all show, no ability", then the critique of cholitas is hypocritical because males also prioritize show over skill. This makes sense.
• Option C: The passage isn't about promoters alienating male luchadores; it's about the hypocrisy of critiques on cholitas, so C is incorrect.
• Option D: The mention of male gimmicks is to counter the critique of cholitas, not to validate it, so D is incorrect.

Answer:

B. the critique that cholitas luchadoras are "all show, no ability" is hypocritical, since luchadores can also prioritize showmanship over technical skill.