Guide book writer:

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 3:22 am
Thanked: 7 times
Followed by:3 members

Guide book writer:

by \'manpreet singh » Thu Jun 27, 2013 9:44 pm
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, these declines are likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses and therefore on the economy of Florida.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument given?

(A) People who moved from one state to another when they retired moved a greater distance, on average,last year than such people did ten years ago.

(B) People were more likely to retire to North Carolina from another state last year than people were ten years ago.

(C) The number of people who moved from one state to another when they retired has increased signifi cantly over the past ten years.

(D) 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.

(E) Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.
Ans c

Could not understand the explanation for answer, would like comments on it.


2)Guidebook writer: I have visited hotels throughout the country and have noticed that in those built before 1930 the quality of the original carpentry work is generally superior to that in hotels built afterward. Clearly carpenters
working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the guidebook writer's argument?

(A) The quality of original carpentry in hotels is generally far superior to the quality of original carpentry in other structures, such as houses and stores.
(B) Hotels built since 1930 can generally accommodate more guests than those built before 1930.
(C) The materials available to carpenters working before 1930 were not significantly different in quality from the materials available to carpenters working after 1930.
(D) The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished.
(E) The average length of apprenticeship for carpenters has declined significantly since 1930.
Ansd

For 2nd question i believe all options would not weaken much!!!
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2013 2:56 am
Thanked: 4 times

by luckypiscian » Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:12 pm
Ques 1

The argument states
3 points decrease in percentage of retired moving to Florida shall cause economic declines in businesses there.
i.e. the percentage has decreased - not necessarily, the number of retired moving to florida.
We don't know what's the change in number of retirements in an year.
While concluding, the author is assuming that number of retirements every year remain constant for 10 years.

To weaken it C becomes an obvious choice.

Quest 2

Too good a CR question. Thanks for posting.
I answered it incorrectly and then kept on wondering.
Read option D more than 10 times before understood it. :)

Option D says
"The better the quality of original carpentry in a building, the less likely that building is to fall into disuse and be demolished. "
OR
"If the quality of original carpentry in a hotel is good, there are less chances of it getting demolished. So the best ones built before 1930 remained and others were demolished. So the selected few before 1930s are being compared to all/most constructed after 1930. Hence conclusion on carpenters' skill and efforts, based on the given comparison, might be judgmental and incorrect"

Might not be the best way to explain, but I hope I am able to deliver the context here.
Last edited by luckypiscian on Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:17 pm

by oneo » Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:15 pm
'manpreet singh 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, these declines are likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses and therefore on the economy of Florida.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument given?

(A) People who moved from one state to another when they retired moved a greater distance, on average,last year than such people did ten years ago.

(B) People were more likely to retire to North Carolina from another state last year than people were ten years ago.

(C) The number of people who moved from one state to another when they retired has increased signifi cantly over the past ten years.

(D) 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.

(E) Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.
Ans c

Could not understand the explanation for answer, would like comments on it.


Hey manpreet... Here s my take on the question. Right or wrong, here I Go..
A) It does not say anything concrete related to the argument above. So it can be ruled out.

B) It says people are more likely to retire, which is a chance, but doe not say how it affects

C) This might be a possible answer to our question. He says that the no of of people increased significantly than the last year. So this could be a reason why the percentage points dropped. So in reality, even though percentage points have come down, actually no of people could have gone up which would have resulted in the drop of % points(as denominator is increased)

D) This actually supports the argument.

E) This says that compared to all the states Florida attracts more people. But does not say the no of people retiring or how the no of people retiring this year is in relation with the previous years. Secondly, this is a very general statement that stands over time. i.e. in all the years Florida attracts more than any other state, which means if there is general decrease in retirements because of age group or any other reason, Florida would get a greater share. So as a general trend if everywhere retirements decreased, then FLorida also it could have decreased and led to drop in % points.

So i d go with Option C!.. Please let me know about the right answer.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 271
Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 3:22 am
Thanked: 7 times
Followed by:3 members

by \'manpreet singh » Fri Jun 28, 2013 1:32 am
Luckypiscon i got your explanation, sounds satisfying to me.Yes it was indeed a mindbuster question for me too.

But we got to keep working on it.

User avatar
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

by David@VeritasPrep » Fri Jun 28, 2013 5:45 pm
For question 1 -- "Florida retirees"

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 C 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.
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course

User avatar
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

by David@VeritasPrep » Fri Jun 28, 2013 5:51 pm
The second question "guidebook writer"

I have posted twice on this question and I will quote the explanations below. Here are the links in case you want see the entire discussion threads.

https://www.beatthegmat.com/og-cr-no-114-t58629.html

https://www.beatthegmat.com/og-12-weaken ... 81651.html

"The conclusion to this question is that "carpenters working on hotels before 1930 typically worked with more skill, care, and effort than carpenters who have worked on hotels built subsequently." I quote the entire conclusion here because the conclusion is the king for strengthen and weaken questions, meaning that the exact wording of the conclusion is often very important.

The Evidence for the conclusion is that the hotels the guidebook writer visited that were built before 1930 had better carpentry.

Notice that the writer goes from the limited evidence of the pre 1930 hotels that were visited by the writer in the present day having better carpentry to the very general conclusion that carpenters working on hotels before 1930 were more skilled, etc.

You are looking for evidence as to why the carpentry of these hotels is better, that would not involve better carpentry in general. The answer might be that the hotels visited now are not representative of the all the hotels built back before the 1930s. How could this be? Well of course not all hotels built before 1930 would still exist and the ones that survived would likely be the ones worth keeping. So this could account for the difference. There is a selection process at work here - the better quality hotels are still here and the poorer quality are not.

This is what choice D says."



"It might help to look at this as cause and effect. The stimulus is giving us the known effect that in hotels "built before 1930 the quality of the original carpentry work is generally superior to that in hotels built afterward." So this cannot be debated this is a premise and we must accept it.

The cause mentioned in the stimulus is that the carpenters worked with more skill, etc. Basically this is saying that the hotels were built better before 1930.

Now in order to weaken a cause and effect we want to explain the effect in terms of a different cause. Could there be another reason why the person who visited the hotels found that the ones from before 1930 were better? A reason other than the original quality was better?

Yes. there is another possible reason. That reason is time. 1930 was a long time ago. There is no possibility that even half of the hotels from that time have survived to this day. That is mere logic not an assumption. So how does time decide which hotels survive? Why the nicer ones, the ones that are better built are the ones that are kept up and that survive to the present day. So we can explain the CURRENT better quality of the hotels by saying that only the best hotels survived. So the majority of hotels before 1930 may have been crap, but that crap did not survive. Maybe only the best hotels did. That would weaken the idea that better initial quality is the reason."
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2013 1:56 am

by jasmine78888 » Mon Jul 01, 2013 2:17 am
Nice surprise about this shorter form. Can you tell us what it is you are talking/writing about?Has any info. about this shorter form been posted before (and i just missed it)?
We are the leading the world in providing best Pass4sure HP2-B109 gre and ISEB
prep solutions. Our incredible offers for Rockefeller University and examsheets gedare accessible at reasonable prices; our University of Arkansas at Fort Smith is very rare in IT world.