Bunuel wrote:
On average, residents of City X devote a greater percentage of their yearly incomes to housing costs than do residents of City Y, though the costs of insurance and fuel generally are exorbitant in both commuter-heavy cities. Yet in Wealth Magazine’s annual list of the country’s least affordable cities, City Y is deemed less affordable than City X.
Which of the following, if true, best explains the contrast described above?
A. A greater percentage of residents of City Y send their children to private schools than is the case in City X.
B. Unlike City Y, City X has an efficient and inexpensive public transportation system.
C. The average price of a new house is higher in City X than in City Y.
D. A number of high-priced restaurants and boutiques have recently opened in City Y.
E. Several large businesses have recently relocated from City Y to City X.
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
The question asks us to find a choice that contributes most towards explaining why City Y is considered less affordable than City X. This situation is surprising because the percentage of yearly income devoted to housing costs is higher in City X than in City Y, implying that it is more expensive to live in City X. We do know, however, that insurance and fuel costs are generally exorbitant in both cities, and that both cities are home to many commuters.
(A) This does not explain why City Y is less affordable than City X. Private school is a choice. Public schools remain a free option for parents in both cities.
(B) CORRECT. If City Y has no effective public transportation system, its residents will need to provide their own means of transportation. Since insurance and fuel costs are exorbitant in both cities, we know that residents of City Y will likely be forced to spend significant amounts on car insurance and gasoline. Because City X has an inexpensive public transportation system, its residents may be able to avoid these specific expenses.
(C) If new houses are more expensive in City X than in City Y, one would expect City X to be considered less affordable than City Y. This does not explain why City Y is considered less affordable than City X.
(D) The presence of expensive restaurants and boutiques in City Y is not relevant, since these represent only one end of the retail spectrum and do not preclude the presence of inexpensive alternatives. Moreover, we know nothing about the retail establishments in City X; they could be even more expensive.
(E) We do not know whether the relocations have affected the ability of residents of City Y to cover their living expenses.