Solution
The passage talks about why Olympic sports facilities struggle after the Games end.
From passage: "Today, the Bird's Nest in Beijing sits virtually empty, while the Olympic Stadium in Sydney costs some $30 million a year to operate."
The key is looking for specific evidence about why facilities aren't used well after Olympics -> The passage gives us two concrete examples -> Beijing's stadium is empty, Sydney's costs $30 million yearly to run -> This points to scale and cost problems.
From passage: "The facilities benefit is dubious at best for buildings such as velodromes or natatoriums and problematic for 100,000 seat Olympic stadiums."
The passage mentions huge scale (100,000 seats!) and massive operating costs as the main issues -> These make facilities hard to use after Olympics.
Now let's eliminate wrong options using the evidence hunt method:
š Option 2 -> no-evidence-error -> Passage never mentions facilities being "away from city centre" or access problems. Student confusion: "Maybe big stadiums are far away?" -> But passage doesn't say this anywhere.
š Option 3 -> no-evidence-error -> Passage doesn't mention authorities being indifferent or not adapting facilities. Student confusion: "Sounds logical that authorities don't care?" -> But we need passage support, not logic.
š Option 4 -> context-shift -> Passage mentions time pressure in planning but for urban landscape decisions, not facilities becoming outdated. The facilities work fine during Olympics -> problem is after Olympics.
š¢ Option 1 is correct -> direct-evidence-match -> Passage directly states huge scale (100,000 seats) and massive costs ($30 million yearly) as why facilities sit empty or struggle.