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.
(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.

[spoiler]OA: D[/spoiler]

I was thinking about A.

If A is true, then Florida can attract more people means of all the states, Florida will attract more retired persons.
Example:
100 persons moved. if out of this 100 Florida can attract 40 persons, all other states can attract only 60. This means that Florida will have more people.

What is the flaw in my reasoning?

Thanks.