The correct answer is (E).
(E) Flaw
Step 1: Identify the Question Type
The question asks why the argument is "flawed," making this easy to identify as a flaw question. Break the argument down into its conclusion and evidence, and look for an answer that explains why the evidence doesn't adequately back up the conclusion. Keep common flaw types in mind.
Step 2: Untangle the Stimulus
The author makes two arguments. The first is that her volleyball club will have the best team in the city because it has recruited the best players in the city. This subsidiary argument leads to the second one, which is that her club will almost certainly be city champions this year because the best team (which she claims to have) is most likely to win.
Step 3: Make a Prediction
Both of her arguments are flawed. In the first argument, she assumes her group as a team will share the characteristics of its individual members. In other words, she assumes that because the individual players are the best, they will work together as a whole better than any other team. The second argument makes an improper shift from individual comparison to overall assessment. More specifically, being more likely to win than any other team doesn't make the team a near-certain winner of the championship. Say, for example, that there are four teams; if the best team has a 40% chance of winning, and each of the other teams has a 20% chance of winning, then the best team is more likely to win than each other team individually but still is more likely overall to lose the tournament (60% chance) than win. An answer that indicates either of these points will be correct, as it will demonstrate something that makes the argument flawed.
Step 4: Evaluate the Answer Choices
(E) expresses the flaw in the author's second argument. The author concludes that because an event is the most likely outcome of multiple individual possibilities (her team is more likely to win than is each other team), that event is more likely than not to occur (her team will almost certainly win).
(A) distorts the author's arguments. The author claims her team is the best based on the quality of her individual players, not on competition. Also, there's no indication that competition was used to determine which players are the best.
(B) is off because how good the team and its individual players are is relevant to the team's quality. There is nothing irrelevant here, just misinterpreted data.
(C) is tempting, since the author does make such a prediction. However, there's nothing wrong with predicting an outcome based on comparing the competitors. The flaw the author commits is taking it to the extreme and asserting her team will "almost certainly" win.
(D) reverses, but fails to negate, the logic of the author's first argument. She assumes that if each individual part of her team is the best, then her team as a whole is the best team, not the other way around.
