Thanks for the question! So let’s recap this argument. We know that for any given ticket in a lottery, each individual ticket will probably lose. So, the argument concludes, it’s reasonable to believe that no ticket will win.
Now the question is asking us for an answer choice that exhibits the same kind of flawed reasoning as the argument. What is this flawed reasoning exactly? Well, we have a trait of one individual ticket in the lottery: that it’s probably going to lose. And then we apply that trait to the entire group of tickets, and conclude that no ticket will win (which is generally false, since there usually has to be at least one winner).
Now let’s take a look at what’s happening in (B). When a horse’s chances of winning the race are 999/1000, then it’s reasonable to believe that the horse will win. So, the argument concludes, the other horses are probably not going to win. Is this the same kind of flaw as the argument? No, not at all. Here, we talk about the trait of one individual horse in the group. But then we use that to infer something else about the other horses in the group! It’s a different kind of reasoning, and so (B) isn’t the correct answer choice.
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.
