This works as a logic puzzle. Assuming the host offers different doors depending on contestant attractiveness makes absolutely no sense. It's a bizarre assumption.
Maybe the goats can wander from door to door, or maybe there is no car, or maybe behind all of the doors there are tigers. Which would be absurd and unrelated to this puzzle.
And, as CrazyStat has correctly pointed out, as stated in the linked article the hosts' strategy is an unknown. It could be bizarre. Although I'd still rather say vos Savant was correct in her reasoning; since the answer is interesting it seems fairer to blame the person posing the question for getting a detail wrong.
> So let’s look at it again, remembering that the original answer defines certain conditions, the most significant of which is that the host always opens a losing door on purpose. (There’s no way he can always open a losing door by chance!) Anything else is a different question.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130121183432/http://marilynvos...
For any given logic puzzle, you can safely assume anything not specified is outside the problem.
Here, what Monty had for lunch, whether he finds the contestant attractive, or some complex algorithm for his behavior is left unspecified and -- since this is a logic puzzle -- this must mean none of this matters!
Imagine if Monty opened a door with a goat only if he had had goat cheese for breakfast. Sounds ridiculous for the logic puzzle, right?
We can safely assume, like Savant, that Monty always picks a door with a goat, turning this into a logic puzzle about probability.
Anything else is going out of your way to find ambiguity.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/21/us/behind-monty-hall-s-do...
