A corporation created a new division. To staff it, applicants were rigorously screened and interviewed. Those selected were among the most effective, efficient, and creative workers that the corporation had ever hired. Thus, the new division must have been among the most effective, efficient, and creative divisions the corporation had ever created. The flawed pattern of reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in the argument above? ['A law firm decided to add a department devoted to family law. To obtain the best employees it could, the firm studied the credentials and composition of several other firms well known to have successful staffs working in family law. Eventually, the firm hired a staff of new lawyers and support personnel having training and aptitudes as much like those of the studied firms as possible. Thus the law firm must have created one of the best family-law departments.', 'Several salespeople were given incentives to recruit the largest number of new customers in one month. To monitor the incentive program, the boss interviewed one of the salespeople and found that the salesperson had already exceeded the minimum goals of the program. Thus the incentive program was indeed effective.', "Various schools chose teams of students to compete in a debate tournament. Each school's team presented a position and rebutted the others' positions. After the initial scores were in, the ten top teams competed against each other. Since one team eventually emerged with the highest average score, it was clearly the best team.", "To put together this year's two All-Star Teams, the best players in the league were selected. Half of them were put on Team One, and half were put on Team Two. Since each player on the two teams was one of the best players in the league this year, it follows that the two AllStar Teams are the two best teams this year."]