A bit tricky but here goes my explanation:

It's a numbers based question - so let's say there are 50 visitors to pure aquariums and 50 visitors to zoo aquariums. The argument says that around 30 visitors to pure aquariums are vacationers where as around 10 visitors to zoo aquariums are vacationers. How to explain this discrepancy ?

(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.
Argument is about vacationers/tourists - not locals : Rule out
(B) Virtually all large metropolitan areas have zoos, whereas only a few large metropolitan areas have pure aquariums.
Visiting metropolitan/urban areas is not mentioned in the argument - OOS
(C) Over the last ten years, newly constructed pure aquariums have outnumbered newly established zoos by a factor of two to one.
So this essentially means there are more pure aquariums than zoo aquariums. Doesn't help to understand why more tourists are going to PA's as opposed to ZA's.
(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.
Compelling evidence : If a visitor visits a ZA and is prompted to go to a PA - he adds to the existing traffic of tourists to PA. So this contributes to more tourist traffic to PA, explaining the paradox.
(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.
OOS - the size of aquariums is irrelevant.

-pradeep
_________________

In the land of the night, the chariot of the sun is drawn by the grateful dead

Sorry but its not D
_________________

math-polygons-87336.html
competition-for-the-best-gmat-error-log-template-86232.html

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?


Explanation:
---------------------
(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. ---> This option mentions only local residents. So, discard it.

(B) Virtually all large metropolitan areas have zoos, whereas only a few large metropolitan areas have pure aquariums. ---> Well, I could easily figure out this option as the answer by method of elimination but to provide reasoning as to why this should be correct, I referred Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (The dictionary you can trust - 30 million copies sold ), which states a vacationer as a holidaymaker (a person who is visiting a place on holiday/vacation). So, this option makes sense. If few large metropolitan areas have pure aquariums, then people from other places will have to visit these areas that 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. ---> Inconclusive because we don’t have any idea about the number of zoos and aquariums that were present 10 years back.

(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. ---> It only mentions likelihood (having a high probability) but not certainty. So, we can discard it.

(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’s comparing irrelevant information (zoo aquariums of zoos & aquariums of zoos that have no pure aquarium nearby).
---------------------

My choice is option B.

Hope that helps.


Regards,
Technext
_________________

+++ Believe me, it doesn't take much of an effort to underline SC questions. Just try it out. +++
+++ Please tell me why other options are wrong. +++

~~~ The only way to get smarter is to play a smarter opponent. ~~~

I missed this one but ans B seems obvious..

if more zoos are present at more places then the proportion of local people visiting the zoo is higher than vacationers.

POE works best in this problem.
Even though I didn't understand the full implication of choice B in the first go, I was able to figure out that other options just don't apply to the context.

nice one textnet.....I chose C Using POE i was left with B & C

good one
_________________

I'm the Dumbest of All !!

Hey, what's the source?

Not a single answer choice fits perfectly imo. I guess B is the closest, but it still assumes too much. Again, this is my opinion.

Thanks

The answer is B.

You need to find a reason as to why more vacationers are visiting pure aquariums over zoos. B argues this by stating that most cities have zoos but very few have aquariums. Therefore people are more likely to be local at their zoo and be a visiting vacationer at an aquarium.

One little helpful trick here is to try and figure out an explanation even before you read the options.

Why would there be many more tourists to aquariums than to zoos? maybe because there are more zoos for the locals to visit.

If a family has one aquarium close to home and two zoos it makes sense for them to visit the aquarium one time a year, and each of the two zoos one time. Resulting in a bigger number of locals visiting zoos.

Or another explanation could be that the zoo changes animals more often so it makes more sense for locals to go visit more often.

If you scan the options and find one that s coherent with your train of thoughts (like in this case) then you are in a good spot.
_________________

"The Burnout" - My Debrief

Kudos if I helped you


Andy