The above table shows, for different cities, the percentage of popul

Hi SajjadAhmad,
Could you share the OE for this IR question.

Thanks in advance.

1)Would not explain , because their could be other reason such as people are not interested in going to parks.
2)Would no explain, because by seeing number of regular visitors we can't say that theaters are near to their houses
3)Would not explain because we don't the exact number of people in any cities and also these can be overlapping sets,so we cannot explain clearly

Posted from my mobile device

Seemingly a debatable question it is in terms of logic used behind the rationale of the question. If i put too much emphasis on the question statement "Select Would Explain if the statement explains some of the information in the table. Otherwise, select Would not Explain." i would say its answer is "Would explain for all of the statements. BUT if i put emphasis on the logical construction its answer will completely reversed and will be "Would not explain for all the statements".Lets wait until the lnm87 confirms the OA.

Thanks

OE:
A. Having no easy access to a public park would help explain why so few people visit parks regularly. It would explain.
B. Comparative easy access to movie theatres to residents in Los Angles and Boston would help explain the greater percentage of regular visitors in these two cities compared to Dallas.
C. The total of the percentages given for the people of Chicago is 93+28+55+25 = 201. It means on an average, the people of Chicago are regular visitors to two of the given locations. On the other hand, the total of the percentages given for the people of Dallas is 80+10+41+12=143. It means on an average, the people of Dallas are regular visitors to 1.43 locations. These facts can be explained by the information that the people of Dallas are less outgoing than the people of Chicago.

SajjadAhmad
I find questions, whether official or other prep company, that have would explain and would not explain or true and false always notorious because they have this debatable subtlety - an absolute solution or a logical one.
This question is debatable for one more reason - the highlighted part. I marked third one as would not explain but OE says would explain which i am not satisfied with.

One benefit of such questions is that our knowledge improves and we come to know that how a bad question look like.

Yes, that's why I share such questions to get to know more how people perceive and approach/solve them. I remember bb having started a thread on IR where these debatable things are discussed, I can't find it though.

Here's an GMATprep questions wherein in 2 question is debatable. Don't know why there are two links.
https://gmatclub.com/forum/for-each-of- ... l#p2462740
https://gmatclub.com/forum/percentage-o ... l#p2460136

Here %age data of population visiting museum is given but are we sure that Russia has fewest museums.??

what is the source of these questions? Can such questions appear on GMAT IR?

Source of the question is 800Score.

Source is already mentioned - 800score. Also see above post where i have given links to similar GMATprep question. The subtlety i am talking about is that even if i can answer the question as NO then should i mark the answer as would explain or would not explain. The ambiguity arises from the fact that i can answer in a confirmed NO or YES(a question that posters have asked in the links).

A year back, i used to think that it can be explained even if the answer is NO and that was because of the DS approach, in which, if i get a definite YES or NO, i can say it is sufficient to answer. The problem is more gruesome when the question stem is worded "would be sufficient or would not be sufficient".

 

­Regarding the third item, which states that the proportion of people preferring to spend time indoors is higher in Dallas than in Chicago, I believe this partially explains the data in the table...

If you examine the "public parks" column and compare the two cities, you will see that 25% of people in Chicago visit public parks, which is twice the percentage of Dallas. This suggests that people in Dallas prefer indoor activities.

However, the other columns ("department stores", "movie theaters", and "restaurants") represent indoor venues (they are enclosed places). Upon comparing the two cities again, it's evident that Chicago has a higher percentage of people frequenting all three of these locations. This leads us to consider that people in Chicago prefer these indoor places.

We are presented with two possible and contrasting conclusions. I believe this item explains a part of the data, and because additionally considering the question of whether a department store, movie theater, or restaurant is indoors or not—given that one must go outdoors to enter these indoor spaces—and the ambiguity this presents, I choosed "would explain".