chidcguy 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?
(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.

nitin86 wrote: IMO - B

SO, the argument does not state the number of vacationers going to "pure aquariums" or to "zoos".

But, argument does says, the number of vacationers coming to "pure acquriums" form half of "pure acquariums" visitors, and a fourth for "zoos", which is only possible, when number of zoos are more than number of "pure acquariums"
[Assuming that vacationers may be going to both zoo and pure acquarium].

As we have to select best answer, we have to think in this direction to justify b