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 tent to be smaller than the aquariums of zoos that have no pure aquarium nearby.
从问题中的“helps to account for”可以明确该题是解释题，所以要怀着读出“奇怪或矛盾”的目的去阅读原文(绝不是怀着奇怪的心态去阅读)
读完原文发现，一方面vacationer占了参观pure aquariums人数的一半，而同时只占了参观zoo人数的不到四分之一。这是怎么回事呢?尤其是zoo中还有zoo aquarium呢。这题读完，本身觉得也没啥矛盾，就是心里觉得怪怪的。(注意原文中account for 意为“占”，而问题中的意为“解释”)
初步预估，大概是vacationers都是纯爷们，特爱看纯水族，不是很爱看ZOO中的水族(毕竟scope不如纯的全面)
如果这样想，很多人就会青睐D项;D说人民群众参观ZOO的可能性是参观纯水族的两倍多，好像解释了;仔细一想不对啊，这和vacationer占参观人数的比例毫无关系啊;同学们，分子分母思维法，不可只想分子，更不可只想分母啊。
该题的核心是vacationer;这是原文的轨道，切不可脱离，那vacationer的参观者和其它参观者有啥子区别呢?恩，vacationer，旅游度假者也，多是去外地观光，而其它参观者当然是当地居民了。一个旅游观光者到外地一般会看什么景点呢?当然是自己本地所没有的。所以嘛，这道题的答案就已经浮出了水面。
应该是 B (有纯水族的城市少，所以每到这个城市的vacationer要去纯水族的可能性就比去参观ZOO的可能性大的多，毕竟几乎所有城市都有ZOO;而当地游客这种偏爱就不明显;分子分母思维法，定要牢记)待忆~思盈的分析已经接近真理，望再接再厉 ”
编辑推荐：
