GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 15 Nov 2018, 23:54

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

## Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in November
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
28293031123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829301
Open Detailed Calendar
• ### Free GMAT Strategy Webinar

November 17, 2018

November 17, 2018

07:00 AM PST

09:00 AM PST

Nov. 17, 7 AM PST. Aiming to score 760+? Attend this FREE session to learn how to Define your GMAT Strategy, Create your Study Plan and Master the Core Skills to excel on the GMAT.
• ### GMATbuster's Weekly GMAT Quant Quiz # 9

November 17, 2018

November 17, 2018

09:00 AM PST

11:00 AM PST

Join the Quiz Saturday November 17th, 9 AM PST. The Quiz will last approximately 2 hours. Make sure you are on time or you will be at a disadvantage.

# In the United States, vacationers account for more than half of all vi

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 775
In the United States, vacationers account for more than half of all vi  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 08 Nov 2018, 03:00
2
36
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

44% (01:40) correct 56% (02:08) wrong based on 1528 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.

_________________

http://gmatclub.com/forum/math-polygons-87336.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/competition-for-the-best-gmat-error-log-template-86232.html

Originally posted by nitya34 on 22 Mar 2009, 10:18.
Last edited by Bunuel on 08 Nov 2018, 03:00, edited 1 time in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8536
Location: Pune, India
Re: In the United States, vacationers account for more than half of all vi  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 24 Sep 2014, 21:09
6
2
jgomey wrote:

I fell for C. My reasoning was as follows:

Since more aquariums are built, more aquariums exist compared to Zoos. This explains why more people are visiting aquariums. MY REASONING was clearly flawed, because I did not consider the possibility that more Zoos exist overall, despite the new construction.

B is the correct choice. As indicated earlier, less aquariums exist compared to the number of Zoos, so people must travel in order to visit a "Pure Aquarium."

Actually, notice another thing. You don't have to explain why more people are visiting pure aquariums (actually that may not be true. Overall, the number of people visiting pure aquariums might be lesser). You have to explain why visitors to pure aquariums are 50% vacationers (and other 50% are perhaps local people) while visitors to zoos are only 25% vacationers while other 75% are local people. The number of people visiting the pure aquarium and the number visiting the zoo are not an issue at all. The issue is the different demography: vacationers vs locals.
The reasons can be two:
- Vacationers find pure aquariums attractive for some reason (as B explains - its because there are fewer pure aquariums)
- Local people prefer zoo over pure aquarium (probably because their kids want to visit zoos and often)
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Originally posted by VeritasKarishma on 23 Jan 2013, 20:26.
Last edited by VeritasKarishma on 24 Sep 2014, 21:09, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 104
Re: In the United States, vacationers account for more than half of all vi  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Mar 2009, 20:28
28
2
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. ~~~

##### General Discussion
Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 343
Location: PDX
Re: In the United States, vacationers account for more than half of all vi  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Mar 2009, 18:24
1
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.

_________________

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

Intern
Joined: 05 Jan 2009
Posts: 9
Re: In the United States, vacationers account for more than half of all vi  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Mar 2009, 08:42
3
There are few aquariums so this explains why there are more visitors from other cities.
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Jul 2009
Posts: 266
Re: In the United States, vacationers account for more than half of all vi  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jan 2010, 19:21
1
got it at last why D is wrong. Nice one thats why need to put this analysis for all:
(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.
We are talking about visitors or vacationers but still if it is true it weaks the argument

(B) Virtually all large metropolitan areas have zoos, whereas only a few large metropolitan areas have pure aquariums.
A plausible reason why vacationers would be more interested in visiting a pure aquarium than a zoo

(C) Over the last ten years, newly constructed pure aquariums have outnumbered newly established zoos by a factor of two to one.
Proportion of aquariums to zoos is not an issue

(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.
Probability of visit is not an issue

(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.
Size of zoo is not an issue
Manager
Joined: 23 Nov 2009
Posts: 79
Schools: Wharton..:)
Re: In the United States, vacationers account for more than half of all vi  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Nov 2010, 09:04
1
"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."

don't really understand the basis for the highlighted text..simple question why would they HAVE TO VISIT??
to some ve to extent i would have to agree with D
_________________

" What [i] do is not beyond anybody else's competence"- warren buffett
My Gmat experience -http://gmatclub.com/forum/gmat-710-q-47-v-41-tips-for-non-natives-107086.html

Manager
Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Posts: 198
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Real Estate
GMAT 1: 740 Q48 V42
Re: In the United States, vacationers account for more than half of all vi  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Mar 2011, 20:50
1

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.
Intern
Joined: 23 Nov 2012
Posts: 32
Location: France
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: Said (D)
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
WE: Sales (Investment Banking)
Re: In the United States, vacationers account for more than half of all vi  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jan 2013, 05:12
3
2
Quote:
In the USA, 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 simply include a "zoo aquarium" of modest scope.

Which of the following, if true, 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
Wrong Wrong direction if local residents (LRs) would be twice as likely to visit A then there would be less of them in Z. The passage supports that there are rather fewer LRs in A.

B. Virtually all large metropolitan areas have zoos, whereas only a few metropolitan areas have pure aquariums.
Correct One could conclude that people from other regions will go on vacation to visit A but not Z since they could do it at home. This would explain why the propotion of visitors to LRs is higher in A.

C. Over the last 10 years newly constructed pure aquariums have outnumbered newly established zoos by a factor of 2 to 1
Wrong Out of scope. We do not care about the number of Z or A.

D. People who visit zoos in a given year are two times more likely to visit a pure aquarium that year than are people who do not visit the zoo.
Wrong This says nothing about the relationship of the number of visitors to LRs in A or Z.

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.

Wrong Size says nothing about the relationship between the number of visitors to LRs.
_________________

Hodor?

Kudo!

Intern
Status: GMAT Streetfighter!!
Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Posts: 36
Location: United States
Concentration: Healthcare, Finance
GPA: 3.87
Re: In the United States, vacationers account for more than half of all vi  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 23 Jan 2013, 17:52
Triforce wrote:
Quote:
In the USA, 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 simply include a "zoo aquarium" of modest scope.

Which of the following, if true, 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
Wrong Wrong direction if local residents (LRs) would be twice as likely to visit A then there would be less of them in Z. The passage supports that there are rather fewer LRs in A.

B. Virtually all large metropolitan areas have zoos, whereas only a few metropolitan areas have pure aquariums.
Correct One could conclude that people from other regions will go on vacation to visit A but not Z since they could do it at home. This would explain why the propotion of visitors to LRs is higher in A.

C. Over the last 10 years newly constructed pure aquariums have outnumbered newly established zoos by a factor of 2 to 1
Wrong Out of scope. We do not care about the number of Z or A.

D. People who visit zoos in a given year are two times more likely to visit a pure aquarium that year than are people who do not visit the zoo.
Wrong This says nothing about the relationship of the number of visitors to LRs in A or Z.

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.

Wrong Size says nothing about the relationship between the number of visitors to LRs.

Excellent Analysis!

I fell for C. My reasoning was as follows:

Since more aquariums are built, more aquariums exist compared to Zoos. This explains why more people are visiting aquariums. MY REASONING was clearly flawed, because I did not consider the possibility that more Zoos exist overall, despite the new construction.

B is the correct choice. As indicated earlier, less aquariums exist compared to the number of Zoos, so people must travel in order to visit a "Pure Aquarium."

Originally posted by jgomey on 23 Jan 2013, 15:59.
Last edited by jgomey on 23 Jan 2013, 17:52, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Joined: 13 Feb 2012
Posts: 137
Location: Italy
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 560 Q36 V34
GPA: 3.1
WE: Sales (Transportation)
Re: In the United States, vacationers account for more than half of all vi  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jan 2013, 03:12
1
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

Manager
Joined: 12 Dec 2012
Posts: 217
GMAT 1: 540 Q36 V28
GMAT 2: 550 Q39 V27
GMAT 3: 620 Q42 V33
GPA: 2.82
WE: Human Resources (Health Care)
Re: In the United States, vacationers account for more than half of all vi  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Mar 2013, 03:58
Hmmmmmmmmmm ... I still believe that B is out of scope . Can any body clarify more why B in particular ? Thanks in advance
_________________

My RC Recipe
http://gmatclub.com/forum/the-rc-recipe-149577.html

My Problem Takeaway Template
http://gmatclub.com/forum/the-simplest-problem-takeaway-template-150646.html

Senior Manager
Status: Making every effort to create original content for you!!
Joined: 23 Dec 2010
Posts: 473
Location: United States
Concentration: Healthcare, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V34
GMAT 2: 750 Q49 V42
Re: In the United States, vacationers account for more than half of all vi  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Mar 2013, 04:55
1
TheNona wrote:
Hmmmmmmmmmm ... I still believe that B is out of scope . Can any body clarify more why B in particular ? Thanks in advance

Hi TheNona,

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.

The stimulus says that Vacations account of > 50% (lets say 50) of all visitors at "aquariums", this implies that the rest i.e. < 50% (50) are locals. But these same visitors account for < 25% (50) of all visitors ($$\frac{25* 50}{100}$$= 200) at) "Zoos"; this would imply that >75% (200 - 25 = 175) are locals.

If there must be more zoos than pure aquariums, then people from other areas (vacationers) will visit the places which are not available to them in their local areas.

This is a tough question and it could be difficult to answer it correctly under 2 minutes.

Hope this helps,

Vercules
_________________

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Apr 2012
Posts: 370
Re: In the United States, vacationers account for more than half of all vi  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2014, 08:19
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
jgomey wrote:

I fell for C. My reasoning was as follows:

Since more aquariums are built, more aquariums exist compared to Zoos. This explains why more people are visiting aquariums. MY REASONING was clearly flawed, because I did not consider the possibility that more Zoos exist overall, despite the new construction.

B is the correct choice. As indicated earlier, less aquariums exist compared to the number of Zoos, so people must travel in order to visit a "Pure Aquarium."

Actually, notice another thing. You don't have to explain why more people are visiting pure aquariums (actually that may not be true. Overall, the number of people visiting pure aquariums might be lesser). You have to explain why visitors to pure aquariums are 50% vacationers (and other 50% are perhaps local people) while visitors to zoos are only 25% vacationers while other 75% are local people. The number of people visiting the pure aquarium and the number visiting the zoo are not an issue at all. The issue is the different demography: vacationers vs locals.
The reasons can be two:
- Vacationers find pure aquariums attractive for some reason (as C explains - its because there are fewer pure aquariums)
- Local people prefer zoo over pure aquarium (probably because their kids want to visit zoos and often)

Hi Karishma,
I don't understand from your post what you think is the right answer.
Can you elaborate?
Retired Moderator
Joined: 15 Jun 2012
Posts: 1028
Location: United States
Re: In the United States, vacationers account for more than half of all vi  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2014, 11:24
Good question. A lot of traps.

In the USA, 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 simply include a "zoo aquarium" of modest scope.

Which of the following, if true, 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
Wrong. The argument says "vacationers" in general, NOT just "local residents".

B. Virtually all large metropolitan areas have zoos, whereas only a few metropolitan areas have pure aquariums.
Correct. B mentions the basic rule "DEMAND-SUPPLY". This is very frequently shown on GMAT. If supply is less than demand, definitely the number of vacationers going to pure aquarium must be greater than that of vacationers going to zoo.

C. Over the last 10 years newly constructed pure aquariums have outnumbered newly established zoos by a factor of 2 to 1
Wrong. The greater number of aquarium does not mean the greater number of vacationers. It depends on the "supply-demand" rule.

D. People who visit zoos in a given year are two times more likely to visit a pure aquarium that year than are people who do not visit the zoo.
Wrong. Same error as in A. The argument says "vacationers" in general, NOT just "People who visit zoos". How about people who do NOT visit zoo? D can't explain.

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.
Wrong. Th size of zoo aquarium does not directly mean the greater/less number of vacationers.

Only B make sense and is correct.

Takeaway: Be aware of the supply-demand logic in GMAT.

Hope my simple explanation helps.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8536
Location: Pune, India
Re: In the United States, vacationers account for more than half of all vi  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2014, 21:08
ronr34 wrote:
Hi Karishma,
I don't understand from your post what you think is the right answer.
Can you elaborate?

The answer is (B) only. I have a typo in that post. (B) explains that there are fewer pure aquariums, not (C). So answer stays (B). Since there are fewer pure aquariums, vacationers find those attractive since they may not have pure aquariums in their own cities. This explains the higher proportion of vacationers among aquarium visitors.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Apr 2012
Posts: 370
Re: In the United States, vacationers account for more than half of all vi  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Sep 2014, 23:33
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
ronr34 wrote:
Hi Karishma,
I don't understand from your post what you think is the right answer.
Can you elaborate?

The answer is (B) only. I have a typo in that post. (B) explains that there are fewer pure aquariums, not (C). So answer stays (B). Since there are fewer pure aquariums, vacationers find those attractive since they may not have pure aquariums in their own cities. This explains the higher proportion of vacationers among aquarium visitors.

(b) limits the scope of this to just metropolitan areas.
But we aren't talking about tourists or citizens of metropolitan areas, so how can this be right?
Doesn't this option limit us to the sample size we are talking about?
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8536
Location: Pune, India
Re: In the United States, vacationers account for more than half of all vi  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Sep 2014, 19:42
ronr34 wrote:
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
ronr34 wrote:
Hi Karishma,
I don't understand from your post what you think is the right answer.
Can you elaborate?

The answer is (B) only. I have a typo in that post. (B) explains that there are fewer pure aquariums, not (C). So answer stays (B). Since there are fewer pure aquariums, vacationers find those attractive since they may not have pure aquariums in their own cities. This explains the higher proportion of vacationers among aquarium visitors.

(b) limits the scope of this to just metropolitan areas.
But we aren't talking about tourists or citizens of metropolitan areas, so how can this be right?
Doesn't this option limit us to the sample size we are talking about?

Option (B) implies that zoos are much more common than pure aquariums. It doesn't limit the scope to metropolitan areas. Metropolitan cities have the most facilities and infrastructure so if very few metropolitan cities have pure aquariums, it is highly likely that there are very few pure aquariums.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2015
Posts: 109
Re: In the United States, vacationers account for more than half of all vi  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2015, 18:09
(B). Plenty of zoos, comparatively fewer pure aquariums, and fewer pure aquarium visitors means that the niche of pure aquarium visitors would compose a smaller % of the zoo visitor population, assuming that zoos attract a wide general audience. So, less overall pure aquarium visitors and more general population means a smaller % of the zoo visitors should be seen for pure aquarium visitors.

And, pure aquarium visitors are probably more likely to go to a pure aquarium attraction to see water animals, and not to see land animals and birds. Zoos have aquariums, but they're more modest, so they may be more inclined to skip the zoo altogether. This is more of a tertiary (not even secondary) point since this effect would be negated by the fewer number of pure aquariums, which means less access, greater transportation cost, perhaps even higher ticket costs with greater relative demand, and so there's a greater compromise by pure aquarium visitors to go to the smaller zoo aquariums instead.
Manager
Joined: 27 Dec 2016
Posts: 241
Re: In the United States, vacationers account for more than half of all vi  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Nov 2018, 18:07

Hi Karishma,

I was wondering could you please explain why option E is incorrect? I assumed that vacationers visiting a specific city may be attracted to the larger "pure aquarium" vs the smaller zoo aquariums. Is E wrong because we don't know how many "cities" there are where both a zoo and an aquarium exists? If there were only 2 such cities, the difference wouldn't be accounted for, right?
Re: In the United States, vacationers account for more than half of all vi &nbs [#permalink] 13 Nov 2018, 18:07

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 21 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by