BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

Vacationers

Expert replies

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
0
No votes
B
3
60%
C
1
20%
D
1
20%
E
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 5

by charu_mahajan » Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:55 am
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.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by Sam_hellboy » Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:33 pm
IMO D

whats the OA??
Join the discussion

by viveksingh222 » Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:35 am
Stuck b/t B & D...need help..

Thank you,
Vivek.
Join the discussion

by charu_mahajan » Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:34 pm
OA B.
Experts ????
Join the discussion

by challenger63 » Sat Feb 02, 2013 12:39 am
This one is a very tough question, which requires a lot of assuming.
I answered it correctly but spent >5 minutes. What is the source of the question?

Answer should be B
charu_mahajan wrote: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?
charu_mahajan wrote: (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.
>> it could be only two small cities which do not influence overall national statistics.
charu_mahajan wrote: (B) Virtually all large metropolitan areas have zoos, whereas only a few large metropolitan areas have pure aquariums.
>> POE gave me this answer. I think, logic here is that for vacation, in general, vacationers choose to visit something new such as pure aquariums not zoo, which they already have seen.
Large metropolitan areas will constitute the majority of population.
charu_mahajan wrote: (C) Over the last ten years, newly constructed pure aquariums have outnumbered newly established zoos by a factor of two to one.
>> It could be only 2 new aquariums while 1 zoo. Answer C means nothing.
charu_mahajan wrote: (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.
>> So, what? Even if all visitors of ZOO visited Pure Aquarium, it would not explain distribution (zoo = less than 1/4, aquarium = more than 1/2).
charu_mahajan wrote: (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.
>> It could be an answer because it is explaining why people ignore zoo's aquariums.
But the problem of this answer is that there may be only two small cities in the whole US where both "zoo" and "aquarium" located.
If you find my post useful, please don't hesitate to click thanks button.


I am not an expert, so I can make mistakes. If you see a mistake, please notify me.
Join the discussion