The division of the "lion's share" among the three organizing committees is not relevant to the passage, so (1) is dismissed. The sources of revenue, whether from 'ticket sales' or "advertisements," are not mentioned in the first paragraph, eliminating (2). The discouraging view in (4) is not reflected in the first paragraph. The passage specifically discusses the challenge of converting short-term success into long-term economic returns, which aligns with (3).
Option (2) is questionable because the passage does not state that the sports facilities are situated away from the city center. The idea of authorities being indifferent, as suggested by (3), is not found in the passage, so it is ruled out. The passage does not indicate that sports facilities become outdated due to poor planning, eliminating (4). The passage specifically mentions the sports facilities in Beijing and Sydney in the context of the large scale of an Olympic stadium and the significant operating costs required for maintenance. Therefore, (1) accurately captures the information presented in the passage.
Option (1) is referred to in the third paragraph: "Even if they have future use, are they the best use of precious urban real estate?". Option (2) is explicitly mentioned in the fourth paragraph: "Residential areas often are razed… citizens relocated". Option (3) is implied in the last sentence of the passage: "other productive uses that can be made of vanishing fiscal resources." However, the passage does not identify visitors as an Olympic headache. Therefore, the correct answer is (4).
Read the sentence and infer the writer's tone: "The politician's speech was filled with lofty promises and little substance, a performance repeated every election season."