In the United States, vacationers account for more than half of all visitors to what are technically called "pure aquariums" but for fewer than one quarter of all visitors to zoos, which usually include a "zoo aquarium" of relatively modest scope.
Which of the following, if true, most helps to account for the difference described above between visitors to zoos and visitors to pure aquariums?
(A) In cities that have both a zoo and a pure aquarium, local residents are twice as likely to visit the aquarium as they are to visit the zoo.
(B) Virtually all large metropolitan areas have zoos, whereas only a few large metropolitan areas have pure aquariums.
(C) Over the last ten years, newly constructed pure aquariums have outnumbered newly established zoos by a factor of two to one.
(D) People who visit a zoo in a given year are two times more likely to visit a pure aquarium that year than are people who do not visit a zoo.
(E) The zoo aquariums of zoos that are in the same city as a pure aquarium tend to be smaller than the aquariums of zoos that have no pure aquarium nearby.
Please explain each choice above. Thank you
US's vacationers
This topic has expert replies
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 203
- Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 2:08 am
- Thanked: 6 times
- shovan85
- Community Manager
- Posts: 991
- Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 6:19 am
- Location: Bangalore, India
- Thanked: 146 times
- Followed by:24 members
Have confusion between B and E
Premises say
Vacationers > 50%(Visitor) ---> Pure Aquarium
Vacationers < 25%(Visitor) ---> Zoo Aquarium
The difference can be attributed to following:
1. Zoo lots and lots of local people go so Vacationers are outnumbered.
2. The region vacationers belong have zoos(not necessarily with Aquarium) but no pure aquarium
Option
A says "Local residents to Pure Aqua" -- Discard
C "If Pure is ubiquitous then why more vacationers?" --Discard
D "Whatever people go to Aquarium more than zoo but does not explain the %age of vacationers" -- Discard
E says "Where Pure aqua is there smaller Zoo Aqua is present" and B says "less metropolitan cities have Pure Aqua".
Usage of Metropolitan makes me skeptical but still IMO B as E depends on the size of Aquarium.
Premises say
Vacationers > 50%(Visitor) ---> Pure Aquarium
Vacationers < 25%(Visitor) ---> Zoo Aquarium
The difference can be attributed to following:
1. Zoo lots and lots of local people go so Vacationers are outnumbered.
2. The region vacationers belong have zoos(not necessarily with Aquarium) but no pure aquarium
Option
A says "Local residents to Pure Aqua" -- Discard
C "If Pure is ubiquitous then why more vacationers?" --Discard
D "Whatever people go to Aquarium more than zoo but does not explain the %age of vacationers" -- Discard
E says "Where Pure aqua is there smaller Zoo Aqua is present" and B says "less metropolitan cities have Pure Aqua".
Usage of Metropolitan makes me skeptical but still IMO B as E depends on the size of Aquarium.
If the problem is Easy Respect it, if the problem is tough Attack it
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 203
- Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 2:08 am
- Thanked: 6 times
I couldn't get the understanding of Primises ( Stimulus) Itself. Can i have some more explaination. Thank you
- shovan85
- Community Manager
- Posts: 991
- Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 6:19 am
- Location: Bangalore, India
- Thanked: 146 times
- Followed by:24 members
Can we have the OA? If it is wrong I may lead you to a wrong ideaSmarpanGamt wrote:I couldn't get the understanding of Primises ( Stimulus) Itself. Can i have some more explaination. Thank you
Premises say Vacationers/Visitors (the ration) is more in Pure Aquarium than Zoo Aquarium
If the problem is Easy Respect it, if the problem is tough Attack it
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 203
- Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 2:08 am
- Thanked: 6 times