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

Redeem

SunState

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:07 am
Thanked: 4 times
GMAT Score:690

SunState

by vaibhav.iit2002 » Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:21 am
Of the people who moved from one state to another when they retired, the proportion who retired to SunState has decreased by 10 percent over the past five years. Since many local businesses in SunState 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. SunState attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.
b. There are far more local businesses in SunState that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees.
c. The number of retirees who have moved out of SunState to accept re-employment in other states has increased over the past five years.
d. SunState has lower property taxes than any other state, making the state a magnet for retirees.
e. The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past five years.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 2567
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:05 am
Thanked: 712 times
Followed by:550 members
GMAT Score:770

by DanaJ » Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:32 am
I'm guessing E. It doesn't really matter if the proportion has decreased, as long as the physical number has increased. Say 5 years ago 500 people retired and moved out of state, out of which 50% or 250 came to SunState. If at present 5000 people retire and move to another state, out of which 40% come to SunState, then that means 2000 retirees. This is an eight-fold increase, which will surely positively impact the businesses.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:07 am
Thanked: 4 times
GMAT Score:690

by vaibhav.iit2002 » Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:37 am
DanaJ wrote:I'm guessing E. It doesn't really matter if the proportion has decreased, as long as the physical number has increased. Say 5 years ago 500 people retired and moved out of state, out of which 50% or 250 came to SunState. If at present 5000 people retire and move to another state, out of which 40% come to SunState, then that means 2000 retirees. This is an eight-fold increase, which will surely positively impact the businesses.
Thanks for reply but as the sentence reads "the proportion who retired to SunState has decreased by..." doesn't it sound that the people who retired in Sunstate has decreased rather than the retiring people who have moved to Sunstate
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1404
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 6:55 pm
Thanked: 18 times
Followed by:2 members

by tanviet » Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:44 am
this arguement is based on thinking that number is different from ratio, a clasical method of GMAT
Top
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 2567
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:05 am
Thanked: 712 times
Followed by:550 members
GMAT Score:770

by DanaJ » Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:11 am
I think it's like in the numerical example that I've provided: proportion of total number of people who, after retiring, moved to another state.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:07 am
Thanked: 4 times
GMAT Score:690

by vaibhav.iit2002 » Mon Sep 28, 2009 8:15 pm
OA is E
Top
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:49 am

by jacquez » Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:12 pm
OA Can't be E since it strengthens the argument, and the question asks to weaken the argument.

IMO B
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 74
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 4:20 pm
Thanked: 4 times

by nakul_anand » Fri May 07, 2010 6:40 pm
I understand that there is a difference between percentage increase/decrease and actual number increase/decrease.

But the last option states

The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past five years.

This does not mean that the actual number of retirees in SunState have increased over the past 5 years. The option talks about a general trend that has been observed, but does not mention that SunState has seen an increase in retiree population.

or am I missing something?

How can we assume that SunState has also seen an increase in population?
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1119
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 8:50 am
Thanked: 29 times
Followed by:3 members

by diebeatsthegmat » Thu May 27, 2010 9:45 am
vaibhav.iit2002 wrote:Of the people who moved from one state to another when they retired, the proportion who retired to SunState has decreased by 10 percent over the past five years. Since many local businesses in SunState 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. SunState attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.
b. There are far more local businesses in SunState that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees.
c. The number of retirees who have moved out of SunState to accept re-employment in other states has increased over the past five years.
d. SunState has lower property taxes than any other state, making the state a magnet for retirees.
e. The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past five years.
hmhmhm,,
i just did this question last night and i chose the right answer and tonight i chose a wrong one, i dont understand why maybe cant pay attention...
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1309
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:41 pm
Thanked: 33 times
Followed by:5 members

by pradeepkaushal9518 » Thu May 27, 2010 10:13 am
imo D should be the answer

E contradicts the argument and giving a data but it doesnot weaken the argument.

only D is weakening the argument by saying that as the property taxes are low hence retired people stay there.
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1