In the United States, of the people who moved from one state to another when they retired, the percentage who retired to Florida has decreased by three percentage points over the past ten years. Since many local businesses in Florida cater to retirees, this decline is likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.
B. The number of people who move out of Florida to accept employment in other states has increased over the past ten years.
C. There are far more local businesses in Florida that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees.
D. The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past ten years. OA
E. The number of people who left Florida when they retired to live in another state was greater last year than it was ten years ago.
what is wong with A
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Florida
IF the perentage has decreased, that doesnt mean the number of retired in florida has decreased.
What if the number of people retiring in Florida is the same but the number of people moving from one state to another has increased.Then, the percentage will definately decrease.
thus ,IMO D
'A ' supports the conclusion.
What if the number of people retiring in Florida is the same but the number of people moving from one state to another has increased.Then, the percentage will definately decrease.
thus ,IMO D
'A ' supports the conclusion.
-
mbaapplicant2008
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:21 am
-
rohangupta83
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 541
- Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 6:44 pm
- Location: UK
- Thanked: 21 times
- Followed by:3 members
- GMAT Score:680
Please use the 'spoiler' function to hide the OA. By mentioning the OA in the question itself, the brain doesn't use the natural chain of thought.
-
GMATters1001
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:55 pm
- Thanked: 3 times
Businessess depend on total retirees. Just because FL attracts more than other states doesn't mean FL attracts more than in the past. The number of retirees coming in could fall, affecting businessess, while still being higher than other states i.e. A could be true without weakening the argument.
-
jackcrystal
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 2:04 pm
- Thanked: 1 times
-
raajan_p
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 75
- Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 7:19 am
- Location: Orlando
- Thanked: 6 times
D IMO as well.
Reasoning:
Option A actually strengthens the conclusion..
This Option acts as an general notion among people in US. People in US believe that "Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state. "
So this option along with the fact "the percentage who retired to Florida has decreased by three percentage points over the past ten years" mentioned in the question strengthens the argument that the decline is likely to have a negative effect on local business in florida that cater to the retirees.
Option C says "There are far more local businesses in Florida that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees."
Fine and let it be true, but still the option does not provide enough reason for me to say that decrease in percentage of retiree population to florida will not have an negative economic effect on these business.
The available number of local business that cater to the retirees could still be in danger because of the percentage decrease(or even decrease in number) of people who retire to florida.
However Option D does the trick. It says that "The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past ten years"
So before ten years, it was florida alone to where, retired people may be moving into...let say 100
But over the past 10 years, the total number of people who retire and move into another state has increased say 10000, with more than 100 in all states, but 100 in florida..
this could result in comparative percentage decrease in florida, but the number still being the same which inturn means, no negative effect on the economy of retiree business in florida.
Usually, questions on percentage does deal with comparing percentage vs numbers. look out for those sums.
Reasoning:
Option A actually strengthens the conclusion..
This Option acts as an general notion among people in US. People in US believe that "Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state. "
So this option along with the fact "the percentage who retired to Florida has decreased by three percentage points over the past ten years" mentioned in the question strengthens the argument that the decline is likely to have a negative effect on local business in florida that cater to the retirees.
Option C says "There are far more local businesses in Florida that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees."
Fine and let it be true, but still the option does not provide enough reason for me to say that decrease in percentage of retiree population to florida will not have an negative economic effect on these business.
The available number of local business that cater to the retirees could still be in danger because of the percentage decrease(or even decrease in number) of people who retire to florida.
However Option D does the trick. It says that "The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past ten years"
So before ten years, it was florida alone to where, retired people may be moving into...let say 100
But over the past 10 years, the total number of people who retire and move into another state has increased say 10000, with more than 100 in all states, but 100 in florida..
this could result in comparative percentage decrease in florida, but the number still being the same which inturn means, no negative effect on the economy of retiree business in florida.
Usually, questions on percentage does deal with comparing percentage vs numbers. look out for those sums.
Answer A is irrelevant. The total issue is about the number of retirees in Florida from one year to other year ("over the past ten years"), but it does not compare this number with number of retirees in other states. Even it sounds reasonable, it is irrelevant.
-
komal
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 777
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:02 am
- Location: Mumbai, India
- Thanked: 117 times
- Followed by:47 members
arorag wrote:In the United States, of the people who moved from one state to another when they retired, the percentage who retired to Florida has decreased by three percentage points over the past ten years. Since many local businesses in Florida cater to retirees, this decline is likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.
Incorrect : We need to compare Florida to Florida (over last ten years), not Florida with another state. Issue is about decrease in percentage of ppl moving to Florida over the last 10 yrs. Hence this one is Out of Scope.
B. The number of people who move out of Florida to accept employment in other states has increased over the past ten years.
Incorrect : Number of ppl moving OUT of florida is irrelevant.
C. There are far more local businesses in Florida that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees.
Incorrect : Comparison has to be made about economic effect on those businesses catering to retirees over the last ten years.
D. The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past ten years.
Correct : The situation mentioned above can best be explained using an example :
Lets Assume that ten years back 100 people in the US moved out of state to retire
Out of 100 ppl 10% moved to florida = 10
This year 200 ppl in the US moved out of state to retire
Out of 200 ppl 7% moved to florida - 14
This year the number of ppl (14) moving to florida has increased even though percentage (less 3%) has decreased.
Answer choice (D) states just this and hence weakens the argument.
E. The number of people who left Florida when they retired to live in another state was greater last year than it was ten years ago.
Incorrect : This strengthens the argument.
Hope this helps : )
-
ssgmatter
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 549
- Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:00 am
- Thanked: 16 times
- Followed by:3 members
Is this a GMAT type question?arorag wrote:In the United States, of the people who moved from one state to another when they retired, the percentage who retired to Florida has decreased by three percentage points over the past ten years. Since many local businesses in Florida cater to retirees, this decline is likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.
B. The number of people who move out of Florida to accept employment in other states has increased over the past ten years.
C. There are far more local businesses in Florida that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees.
D. The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past ten years. OA
E. The number of people who left Florida when they retired to live in another state was greater last year than it was ten years ago.
what is wong with A
Best-
Amit
Amit
-
RadiumBall
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 2:49 am
- Thanked: 5 times
-
David@VeritasPrep
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 2193
- Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pm
- Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
- Thanked: 1186 times
- Followed by:512 members
- GMAT Score:770
Radium - Maybe I can help out...
You are not supposed to compare numbers and percentages. But that is not what is happening here.
You are looking for a reason why the fact that Florida has 3 percent less of the total retiree movement DOES NOT mean that Florida has fewer retirees moving there.
This is a classic "smaller slice of a bigger pie" problem. You see that we have 3% less of the total pie of retirees going to Florida. The best way to have this not result in a less pie going to Florida is to have a bigger pie overall!
That is what choice D does, it gives a bigger pie so while Florida gets a smaller slice it still has more to eat!
By the way, this is cited as coming from the GMATPrep so it seems a reasonable possibility of something like this on the test.
You are not supposed to compare numbers and percentages. But that is not what is happening here.
You are looking for a reason why the fact that Florida has 3 percent less of the total retiree movement DOES NOT mean that Florida has fewer retirees moving there.
This is a classic "smaller slice of a bigger pie" problem. You see that we have 3% less of the total pie of retirees going to Florida. The best way to have this not result in a less pie going to Florida is to have a bigger pie overall!
That is what choice D does, it gives a bigger pie so while Florida gets a smaller slice it still has more to eat!
By the way, this is cited as coming from the GMATPrep so it seems a reasonable possibility of something like this on the test.
-
Target2009
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 574
- Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:47 pm
- Location: USA
- Thanked: 29 times
- Followed by:5 members
