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

Question

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.

Technext · Accepted Answer

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.

), 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

KarishmaB · Answer

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)

pleonasm · Answer

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

gmark · Answer

The answer is B.
There are few aquariums so this explains why there are more visitors from other cities.

akshathbs · Answer

"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

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

u0422811 · Answer

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.

Triforce · Answer

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.

jgomey · Answer

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."

highdiving · Answer

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.

TheNona · Answer

Hmmmmmmmmmm ... I still believe that B is out of scope . Can any body clarify more why B in particular ? Thanks in advance

Vercules · Answer

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

ronr34 · Answer

Hi Karishma,
I don't understand from your post what you think is the right answer.
Can you elaborate?

pqhai · Answer

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.

KarishmaB · Answer

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.

ronr34 · Answer

So I would like to ask a follow up question then...
(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?

KarishmaB · Answer

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.

vanam52923 · Answer

Plz help with this one?
Say all the tourists are from some village ,now they come to city which has both zoo and aquarium 
why ll they choose aquarium and not zoo?
they should go to both places as they have seen neither at home.
Are not we assuming here that max tourists come from city an since they have zoo at their home they prefer aquarium.

KarishmaB · Answer

There is a difference between the two numbers - 25% tourists in zoos while 50% tourists in pure aquariums. Even if some tourists are biased toward the pure aquarium, it could explain the difference. Tourists from big cities visit only the pure aquarium. The ones from small towns could still visit both (and hence make up the 25% that go to zoo).

sssanskaar · Answer

Can someone please explain why is option D wrong. I read each one of the explanations, but am still not 100% convinced.

If people who go to the zoo add up twice to the number of people who visit a pure aquarium, the number of people who visit a pure aquarium can go up. Why are we bothered about people who don't visit etc? or that this is a likely scenario? Every option, even option B, is a likely scenario only. No option in this question says that "this" definitely happens.

Experts please help me understand how to eliminate D.

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

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

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

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