Table Analysis
Three tables, three statements each. Every statement is scored on its own: answer it, see whether you were right, and read why before you move to the next one.
That is deliberate, and it is not how the exam does it. On the real thing a Table Analysis is all-or-nothing across its three statements, and the mixed sets later in the course work that way too. Here the point is to find out which of the three decisions you get wrong — filtering, aggregating against a threshold, or breaking a universal claim — and a single verdict on all three would hide exactly that.
| Branch | Items lent | Registered members | Open hours per week | Public computers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ashgrove | 84,200 | 6,100 | 48 | 12 |
| Beckton | 51,700 | 4,800 | 36 | 8 |
| Coalport | 112,500 | 9,300 | 56 | 20 |
| Dunhill | 39,400 | 3,200 | 30 | 6 |
| Eastvale | 96,800 | 7,400 | 52 | 15 |
| Farnley | 67,300 | 5,900 | 42 | 10 |
Filter first: open more than 40 hours per week gives Ashgrove (48), Coalport (56), Eastvale (52) and Farnley (42) — all four qualify, since 42 clears 40. Within that group, most members is Coalport at 9,300, and most computers is also Coalport at 20. Same branch wins both. Yes.
This is the cross-superlative of I1.3 stacked on the filter of I1.2 — the hardest shape in the format, because both errors are available at once. Note that Beckton and Dunhill never enter the comparison, and that the two rankings had to be checked separately rather than judged by which branch "looks biggest".
The three lowest lending figures: Dunhill (39,400), Beckton (51,700), Farnley (67,300). Sum: 39,400 + 51,700 = 91,100; 91,100 + 67,300 = 158,400. The statement claims more than 165,000, and 158,400 is not. No.
The margin is about 4 percent, which is exactly where estimation betrays you. Round each figure up — 40 + 52 + 68 = 160 thousand — and you are still under, but only just; round to the nearest ten thousand and you land on 160, close enough to the threshold that you would have to guess.
Qualifying rows — more than 5,000 members: Ashgrove (6,100, open 48), Coalport (9,300, open 56), Eastvale (7,400, open 52), Farnley (5,900, open 42). Farnley is open 42 hours, which is not at least 45. One counterexample ends it, and sorting by hours ascending would have put Farnley in front of you immediately. No.
| Hut | Elevation (m) | Beds | Bed-nights booked | Distance from trailhead (km) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aiguille | 2,340 | 48 | 3,120 | 9.5 |
| Bregaglia | 1,870 | 72 | 4,680 | 6.2 |
| Corvatsch | 2,910 | 30 | 1,850 | 14.8 |
| Dolent | 2,150 | 60 | 3,900 | 7.4 |
| Engadin | 1,640 | 85 | 5,270 | 4.1 |
| Furka | 2,680 | 36 | 2,240 | 12.3 |
Highest elevation: Corvatsch at 2,910. Fewest bed-nights: Corvatsch at 1,850. Same hut, both superlatives. Yes. Two sorts, one comparison — the I1.3 method.
Filter: more than 8 km from a trailhead gives Aiguille (9.5), Corvatsch (14.8), Furka (12.3). Their bed counts: 48, 30, 36. Sorted: 30, 36, 48. Three values, so the median is the middle one, 36. The statement claims greater than 36. It is exactly 36. No.
This is the boundary trap from I1.6 combined with the filter from I1.2. Note also that the median of the whole table would be different — candidates who skip the filter compute the median of all six huts (48, 60, and so on) and get another answer entirely.
More than 50 beds: Bregaglia (72, at 1,870 m), Dolent (60, at 2,150 m), Engadin (85, at 1,640 m). All three are below 2,200 metres. No counterexample exists, and here you did have to check all three. Yes.
| Station | Daily passengers | Platforms | Distance to city (km) | Parking spaces |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ashford | 4,200 | 2 | 38 | 180 |
| Barrow | 11,600 | 4 | 14 | 420 |
| Cheswick | 2,800 | 2 | 52 | 95 |
| Dalmeny | 7,900 | 3 | 26 | 310 |
| Eskbridge | 15,300 | 6 | 9 | 560 |
| Fenwick | 5,400 | 2 | 44 | 220 |
| Girvan | 9,100 | 3 | 19 | 380 |
Highest daily passengers: Eskbridge, 15,300. Lowest: Cheswick, 2,800. Range = 15,300 − 2,800 = 12,500, which is greater than 12,000. Yes. Margin is about 4 percent — precise subtraction required.
More than 25 km: Ashford (38), Cheswick (52), Dalmeny (26), Fenwick (44). That is four of seven. More than half of seven is more than 3.5, so four qualifies. Yes.
Watch Dalmeny at 26 km: it clears the 25 km threshold by one kilometre, and dropping it would give three of seven, which is not more than half — flipping the answer. The boundary row is the item.
At least 300 parking spaces: Barrow (420, 4 platforms), Dalmeny (310, 3), Eskbridge (560, 6), Girvan (380, 3). The claim is more than three platforms. Dalmeny has exactly 3 — not more than 3. No.
Two boundary words in one statement — at least 300 on the filter, more than three on the claim — and they behave differently. This is the I1.6 table in practice.