One statement builds a per-hole ratio, one asks only whether a per-round figure can be determined, and one restricts to a subset before testing a property.
Rounds per hole is annual rounds divided by holes: Augusta 3.33, Birkdale 2.50, Carnoust 2.22, Dornoch 2.78, Emerald 2.78 thousand.
Statement 1 - No. The course with the most rounds is Birkdale at 90,000, but across 36 holes that is only 2,500 per hole; the densest is Augusta at 3,330 over an 18-hole course. So the busiest course is not the most played per hole, and the statement is false. The trap is to assume the course with the most rounds works each hole hardest.
Statement 2 - Yes. The table prints no revenue-per-round column, but it gives both annual revenue and rounds, so the ratio is computable: Augusta $70, Birkdale $60, Carnoust $90, Dornoch $65, Emerald $80. The highest is Carnoust, the smallest course, so the answer can be determined. The statement asks only whether it can be determined, and it can. The trap is to answer No because no such column is shown, or to pick Birkdale for its largest raw revenue; the most revenue is not the most revenue per round.
Statement 3 - No. The claim is only about courses with rounds above 55 thousand: Augusta (60), Birkdale (90), and Dornoch (75). Carnoust and Emerald are out. Within that subset the staff counts are Birkdale 70, Dornoch 52, and Augusta 45. Augusta has 45, not more than 48, so the every-one claim fails and the statement is false. The trap is to scan all five staff counts, or to check the low-rounds courses the claim excludes, instead of restricting to the high-rounds subset where Augusta breaks the rule.
The lesson: a per-hole figure is built not read, a ratio you can compute is determinable, and a subset claim is tested only on its subset. Correct answers: No / Yes / No.