Question

neighborhood pool a neighborhood of homes and apartment buildings surrounds a large park filled with beautiful hundred year old oak trees. a neighborhood group called parents for healthy swimming (phs) decides that it would be a good idea to build a swimming pool in the park. even though construction crews would need to cut down many old trees to make space for the pool and its parking lot, the pool would give families an opportunity for exercise and play. money for the project would come from a special tax on residents. park officials agree to let the neighborhood vote on the swimming pool during the upcoming local election. in the meantime, phs conducts a survey, asking residents this question: “yes or no—if someone donated the money for the construction, would you want a swimming pool built in the park?” of the residents surveyed, 80 percent respond yes and 20 percent respond no. phs then puts up signs around the neighborhood that say “survey proves 4 out of 5 residents want a neighborhood swimming pool!” which omission in the sign is the most misleading? 1. the sign fails to explain that old trees would have to be cut down. 2. the sign fails to indicate how many residents responded to the survey. 3. the sign fails to mention how swimming can provide healthy exercise for families. 4. the sign fails to reveal that the survey used the question would be paid for with a donation.

Explanation:

To solve this, we analyze each option:

• Option 1: The sign says "4 out of 5 residents want a neighborhood swimming pool" but doesn’t explain how many (total) residents were surveyed (e.g., if only 5 were surveyed, it’s less meaningful). However, the key issue is about the survey’s wording.
• Option 2: The sign states "4 out of 5" – this implies a sample, but the main flaw is not the number of residents, but the survey’s bias. Eliminate.
• Option 3: The sign focuses on "want" – the text says the survey asked "YES or NO—if someone donated the money...". The sign fails to mention the survey was conditional (only if money was donated), making it misleading. But wait, re - check the options. Wait, the correct flaw: The survey question was "YES or NO—if someone donated the money for the construction, would you want a swimming pool built in the park?". The sign says "4 out of 5 residents want a neighborhood swimming pool" – it fails to reveal the survey was conditional (i.e., the "want" is only if money is donated). But looking at the options, Option 4 says "The sign fails to reveal that the survey said the project would be paid for with a donation." Wait, no, re - examine the options:

Wait, the survey question was about wanting the pool if someone donated the money. The sign says "4 out of 5 residents want a neighborhood swimming pool" – it omits the condition (that the project’s cost is covered by a donation). But among the options, let's re - evaluate:

Wait, the options:

1. The sign fails to explain that old trees would have to be cut down. (The passage says the group acknowledges trees need to be cut, but the sign is about the survey result, not the tree - cutting. Eliminate.)

1. The sign fails to indicate how many residents responded to the survey. (The sign says "4 out of 5" – a ratio, not the total number. But the main flaw is about the survey’s wording, not the sample size. Eliminate.)

1. The sign fails to mention how swimming can provide healthy exercise for families. (The sign is about survey results, not exercise benefits. Eliminate.)

1. The sign fails to reveal that the survey said the project would be paid for with a donation. (The survey question was conditional: "if someone donated the money...". The sign says "want" as if it’s unconditionally, but the survey was about wanting it if funded by donation. So the sign omits this key condition, making it misleading. This is the most misleading omission.)

Answer:

1. The sign fails to reveal that the survey said the project would be paid for with a donation.