Critical Reasoning

On average, residents of City X devote a greater percentage of their yearly incomes to housing costs than do residents of City Y, though the costs of insurance and fuel generally are exorbitant in both commuter-heavy cities. Yet in Wealth Magazine's annual list of the country's least affordable cities, City Y is deemed less affordable than City X.

Which of the following, if true, best explains the contrast described above?

1. A greater percentage of residents of City Y send their children to private schools than is the case in City X.
2. Unlike City Y, City X has an efficient and inexpensive public transportation system.
3. The average price of a new house is higher in City X than in City Y.
4. A number of high-priced restaurants and boutiques have recently opened in City Y.
5. Several large businesses have recently relocated from City Y to City X.

MGMAT ( 500 - 600)

I would choose B. In short every other answer choice is irrelevant because people could choose alternative goods.

A- Private schools aren't necessary costs, so this is irrelevant

B- Correct. It gives the residents a cheaper alternative that would significantly reduce travel expenses

C- This is irrelevant, because people could choose to rent or buy older homes

D- This is irrelevant because people can eat at McDonalds

E- This is just ridiculous.

osirus0830 wrote:I would choose B. In short every other answer choice is irrelevant because people could choose alternative goods.

A- Private schools aren't necessary costs, so this is irrelevant

B- Correct. It gives the residents a cheaper alternative that would significantly reduce travel expenses

C- This is irrelevant, because people could choose to rent or buy older homes

D- This is irrelevant because people can eat at McDonalds

E- This is just ridiculous.

I marked it as D. The cost of living increases by food just as much as it increases by transportation. Can't people opt to walk or take their own vehicles along the same lines of logic? I need someone to explain!!

Choice D states that a number of high priced restaurants and boutiques have opened. If a high price boutique opens in your city does that mean you have to go shop there instead of Wal Mart? It doesn't say that there are ONLY high priced restuarants and boutiques, just that more have opened in the city. No one has to eat or shop at expensive places, they just have that option.

KICKGMATASS123 wrote:

osirus0830 wrote:I would choose B. In short every other answer choice is irrelevant because people could choose alternative goods.

A- Private schools aren't necessary costs, so this is irrelevant

B- Correct. It gives the residents a cheaper alternative that would significantly reduce travel expenses

C- This is irrelevant, because people could choose to rent or buy older homes

D- This is irrelevant because people can eat at McDonalds

E- This is just ridiculous.

I marked it as D. The cost of living increases by food just as much as it increases by transportation. Can't people opt to walk or take their own vehicles along the same lines of logic? I need someone to explain!!

My pick is also B. "...the costs of insurance and fuel generally are exorbitant in both commuter-heavy cities." City X transportation costs is cheaper than City Y, therefore city x is more affordable. D is wrong because we don't know whether the restaurants and boutiques attracted customers or not.

MGMAT expln goes as below,



The question asks us to find a choice that contributes most towards explaining why City Y is considered less affordable than City X. This situation is surprising because the percentage of yearly income devoted to housing costs is higher in City X than in City Y, implying that it is more expensive to live in City X. We do know, however, that insurance and fuel costs are generally exorbitant in both cities, and that both cities are home to many commuters.

(A) This does not explain why City Y is less affordable than City X. Private school is a choice. Public schools remain a free option for parents in both cities.

(B) CORRECT. If City Y has no effective public transportation system, its residents will need to provide their own means of transportation. Since insurance and fuel costs are exorbitant in both cities, we know that residents of City Y will likely be forced to spend significant amounts on car insurance and gasoline. Because City X has an inexpensive public transportation system, its residents may be able to avoid these specific expenses.

(C) If new houses are more expensive in City X than in City Y, one would expect City X to be considered less affordable than City Y. This does not explain why City Y is considered less affordable than City X.

(D) The presence of expensive restaurants and boutiques in City Y is not relevant, since these represent only one end of the retail spectrum and do not preclude the presence of inexpensive alternatives. Moreover, we know nothing about the retail establishments in City X; they could be even more expensive.

(E) We do not know whether the relocations have affected the ability of residents of City Y to cover their living expenses.

B is correct here. If Y doesn't have good public transport then residents of Y have to spend more on Fuel. Therefore, Y will be more expensive than X

It took me 4 minutes.

correct: option B
A) out of scope... private school is not discussed in the argument...Hence wrong
B) Fuels costs in both cities are high and city X uses it efficiently and hence making it more affordable by decreasing the cost. Correct Answer
C) This is not explaining rather weakening the argument. Hence wrong
D) Restaurants and boutiques have no relation with the argument. Moreover, it is Wealth Magazine's annual list, and Restaurants and boutiques have recently opened. So, its anyway won't explain the paradox with recently while it covers for entire year. Hence wrong
E) It is similar to option D. It is Wealth Magazine's annual list, and large businesses have recently relocated. So, its anyway won't explain the paradox with recently while it covers for entire year. Hence wrong

thanks if it helped you