The table shows data for the 12 routes of a city's bus system

What we see: a Table Analysis question with 3 True or False statements. Each one needs a different skill: a median, a share counted in riders, and working back from a percent change. Sorting the right column does most of the work.

Step 1. Statement 1: find the median, then check the routes that fell.
What we see: "every route whose weekday riders fell" and "below the median on-time percent."
What it means: two jobs. Sort by on time: 79, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 95. With 12 values the median is the average of the 6th and 7th: \(\frac{87 + 88}{2} = 87.5\).
What we do and why: sort by change. The routes with a minus sign are 2 (81), 4 (79), 6 (85), 8 (87), 10 (84) and 12 (83). Every one is below 87.5, so the statement holds.
The trap here: taking 87 as the median. Then route 8, at 87, would not be "below," and you would call the statement false.

Step 2. Statement 2: count riders, not routes.
What we see: "at least half of all weekday riders on Suburban routes."
What it means: the Suburban routes are 5 (3,600 riders, 93), 6 (4,150, 85), 7 (2,900, 91) and 8 (3,300, 87). Routes above 90 are 5 and 7, with \(3{,}600 + 2{,}900 = 6{,}500\) riders. All Suburban riders: \(13{,}950\). Half of that is \(6{,}975\).
What we do and why: 6,500 is less than 6,975, so the statement does not hold.
The trap here: counting routes. 2 of the 4 routes are above 90, exactly half, so "at least half" looks true. The statement counts riders, and the two biggest Suburban routes are the ones below 90.

Step 3. Statement 3: rebuild 2025 from the percent change.
What we see: the table gives 2026 riders and the change from 2025, not the 2025 number.
What it means: 2025 riders \(= \frac{\text{2026 riders}}{1 + \text{change}}\). Route 1 has the most riders in 2026 (8,400); in 2025 it had \(\frac{8{,}400}{1.05} = 8{,}000\). Route 12 has 8,100 now after an 18% drop, so in 2025 it had \(\frac{8{,}100}{0.82} \approx 9{,}878\). Route 2 had \(\frac{7{,}900}{0.96} \approx 8{,}229\).
What we do and why: route 12 had the most riders in 2025, not route 1, so the statement does not hold. Only routes that are big now or fell a lot can compete, so after sorting by riders, check the top few and any route with a large drop.

The trap: in statement 3, sorting by 2026 riders and stopping there. A big drop means a big starting number. Also, an 18% drop is 18% of the 2025 number, so adding 18% of 8,100 back (9,558) is the wrong way to rebuild it, even though it happens to give the same ranking here.
Faster way: in statement 3, estimate: a route that lost 18% started at roughly \(8{,}100 \times 1.2 \approx 9{,}700\), far above route 1's 8,000. No exact division is needed.
Takeaway: Before you compute, ask what each statement counts: routes, riders, or last year's riders. Then sort by that column.

Answer: 1. True, 2. False, 3. False