uniyal01 wrote:Can someone please clarify why the answer to the first question is 'NO'?
I thought the data can be inferred from the table, even though the statement itself is not true.
Thanks.

This isn't like data sufficiency - the question isn't whether we have a definitive answer. The question is whether the statement is inferable, or true, based on the data.

(Put another way, imagine a question asked "Is x > 0?" If I tell you that x = -2, that is sufficient to answer the question. We know that the answer is NO. That's the logic of Data Sufficiency, not Integrated Reasoning.

However, now imagine a question that asks "Can we infer that x > 0?" If I tell you that x= -2, clearly we cannot infer that x > 0, because, well, it isn't. This is the logic we're working with here.)

Here are the seasonally adjusted changes in price for used cars and trucks from March to September: .5, .2, .6, .9, .8, .7, -.7

Here are the seasonally adjusted changes in price for new vehicles from March to September: .1, 0, .1, .1, .1, .3, .1

Looking at the figures above, you can see that the changes in price for the used cars and trucks were greater in magnitude than the changes in price for new vehicles. Therefore one cannot infer that these changes were less in magnitude.