One statement builds a per-bay ratio, one composes revenue, and one counts a per-worker figure against a threshold.
Washes per bay is weekly washes ÷ bays: Sparkle 1,200, Gleam 1,000, Shine 1,200, Lustre 1,200, Polish 1,200.
Statement 1 - No. The site with the most washes is Gleam at 18,000, but across 18 bays that is only 1,000 per bay, the lowest; four sites reach 1,200 with fewer bays. So the busiest site is not the most productive per bay, and the statement is false. The trap is to assume the busiest site runs its bays hardest.
Statement 2 - No. Weekly revenue is washes × price: Sparkle $115,200, Gleam 18,000 × $8 = $144,000, Shine $115,200, Lustre $120,000, Polish 10,800 × $14 = $151,200. The most washes is Gleam, but at an $8 price it earns $144,000; the top earner is Polish at $151,200, with fewer washes at a higher price. So the busiest site is not the top earner, and the statement is false. The trap is to stop at the washes column.
Statement 3 - Yes. Washes per worker is washes ÷ workers: Sparkle 400, Gleam 300, Shine 400, Lustre 500, Polish 400. At least 400 describes Sparkle, Shine, Lustre, and Polish, which is four of the five, more than half. Only Gleam, spread over 60 workers at 300, falls short, so the statement is true. The trap is to rank by raw washes, where Gleam at 18,000 looks most productive, or to think a tie at exactly 400 fails 'at least 400'; it does not.
The lesson: a per-bay figure is built not read, revenue is washes × price, and a per-worker count is what the threshold is about. Correct answers: No / No / Yes.