On average, residents of City X devote a greater percentage of their

Question

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.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:

Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler  
  Data Insights Butler

Abhiswarup · Answer

I think answer should be B

A. A greater percentage of residents of City Y send their children to private schools than is the case in City X. The greater percentage in Private schools doesn't add up as it doesn't provide an specific for high expenditure involved in private school. So ignore

B. Unlike City Y, City X has an efficient and inexpensive public transportation system. The passage says costs of insurance and fuels are very high and City X provides a very efficient and inexpensive transportation system. Correct

C. The average price of a new house is higher in City X than in City Y. It makes he City X more costlier than City Y. So ignore.

D. A number of high-priced restaurants and boutiques have recently opened in City Y. Information is insufficient as we don't know about city X. So ignore

E. Several large businesses have recently relocated from City Y to City X. Large businesses don't have any effect on living costs. So ignore

Let me know if I am correct.

Sketchitesh · Answer

B should be correct.

A. Doesn’t clarify is Y is expensive. Don’t know if private schools are expensive. 
B. Yes, Does help in reduced codt in X, making it affordable. 
C. No, Opposite of what asked. 
D. No, What if no one go to expensive restaurant or what if city X also have opened expensive restaurant 
E. No, Doesn’t clarify the effect of cost due to movement of large businesses. Seems irrelevant.

26shreya · Answer

I think c because premise is talking about the cost of resident not about the children's schooling

NextstopISB · Answer

Understanding the Contrast:
- City X: Residents spend a greater percentage of their income on housing costs. 
- City Y: Considered less affordable than City X according to Wealth Magazine. 
- Both cities: Have high costs of insurance and fuel.

At first glance, this seems contradictory. If people in City X spend more of their income on housing, shouldn't City X be less affordable than City Y? Our task is to find an explanation that resolves this apparent contradiction.

Evaluating the Answer Choices:

A. A greater percentage of residents of City Y send their children to private schools than is the case in City X. 
- This suggests higher education expenses in City Y. 
- However, Wealth Magazine ranks cities based on overall affordability, not just education costs. 
- This might contribute to the cost of living, but it does not explain why City Y is ranked as less affordable overall while City X has higher housing costs. 
Eliminate.

B. Unlike City Y, City X has an efficient and inexpensive public transportation system. 
- This means City Y’s residents may have to spend more on transportation such as car ownership, fuel, and insurance. 
- Even though housing costs are lower in City Y, expensive transportation could make it less affordable overall. 
This directly explains the ranking. Keep this option.

C. The average price of a new house is higher in City X than in City Y. 
- This supports the idea that City X has higher housing costs, but we already know this. 
- It does not explain why City Y is considered less affordable in the rankings. 
Eliminate.

D. A number of high-priced restaurants and boutiques have recently opened in City Y. 
- This suggests luxury spending opportunities, but these are optional expenses rather than necessary costs. 
- It is unlikely that Wealth Magazine bases affordability rankings on discretionary spending like dining and shopping. 
Eliminate.

E. Several large businesses have recently relocated from City Y to City X. 
- This might suggest a better job market in City X, which could increase incomes there. 
- However, this does not directly address affordability or explain why City Y is ranked as less affordable. 
Eliminate.

Final Answer: 
B. Unlike City Y, City X has an efficient and inexpensive public transportation system.

This explains why City Y is less affordable overall. Its residents spend more on transportation, making their total cost of living higher, despite City X having more expensive housing.

Bunuel · Answer

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.

On average, residents of City X devote a greater percentage of their

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

On average, residents of City X devote a greater percentage of their

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards