BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Weaken

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:55 pm

Weaken

by siddhans » Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:42 pm
Why cant we eliminate C ? C talks about generic states not specifically about Florida which is out of scope ... Please explain

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
significantly 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.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1309
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 5:34 am
Location: India
Thanked: 310 times
Followed by:123 members
GMAT Score:750

by cans » Sat Jun 11, 2011 6:46 pm
conclusion: florida economy will decline

a)irrelevant (whether people moved greater distance or smaller distance, we are not concerned)
b)out of scope
c)suppose 10 years back, 100% people moved to florida. and people moving=100)
thus to years back, no. of people moved=100
now it says 97% move. but let total number = 1000 (number has increased)
thus people moving = 97% of 1000 which is 970 as compared to 100
thus economy won't decline.
d)out of scope
e)irrelevant
IMO C
If my post helped you- let me know by pushing the thanks button ;)

Contact me about long distance tutoring!
[email protected]

Cans!!
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 2:55 pm

by siddhans » Sat Jun 11, 2011 7:01 pm
Isnt C generic and out of scope ..it talks about all states...we are just concerned with FLORIDA
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 9:54 am
Thanked: 1 times

by what? » Sat Jun 11, 2011 8:16 pm
sid,

I am guessing you choose E... well atleast I had it my final 2. to explain why it is irrelevant, choice E talks about more people, question is specific to retirees. this kind of wrong answer is called shell game..
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 9:32 am
Location: Chicago,IL
Thanked: 46 times
Followed by:19 members
GMAT Score:760

by rkanthilal » Sun Jun 12, 2011 9:09 am
siddhans wrote:Isnt C generic and out of scope ..it talks about all states...we are just concerned with FLORIDA
P1: 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.
P2: Many local businesses in Florida cater to retirees
C1: These declines are likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses and therefore on the economy of Florida.

The first premise refers to people in all states. Of the people in the United States (all states) that move to a different state when they retire, the percentage who retired to Florida has decreased by three percentage points over the past ten years.

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

Answer choice (C) states that the number of people who moved from one state to another when they retired has increased significantly over the past ten years. As you noted this answer also refers to people in all states. This answer weakens the conclusion by implying that the total number of people retiring to Florida may have increased even if Florida's share of retirees that moved from one state to another decreased by 3 percentage points. See "Cans" explanation for a numerical example of this.

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

With regard to answer choice (E), I don't have an issue with the use of the word "people" rather than "retirees". Choice (E) refers not to more "people" but to more "people who move from
one state to another when they retire". This is the same group of people that is described in the argument.

My issue with (E) is that it refers to the total number of people (or retirees) that move to Florida without addressing the decrease in this number. The conclusion of the argument is based on the premise that there has been a 3 percentage point decrease in the people moving to Florida when they retire. Even if Florida attracts more retirees than any other state, there will still be a negative effect on the economy if that number decreases. This answer has no effect on the conclusion.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1