California4jx wrote:very surprisingly ... OA is D - I chose C .... why D ?

The argument says that the businesses catering to retired people (RP) will suffer as there is a % decrease of retired people.

C) is pointing to business in general and not business catered for retired people.

D) aptly says that even though % has decreases the number of retired people has increased.


Hence D). Hope this helps.

OA makes no sense at all. I also chose C.

vinaynp wrote:

California4jx wrote:very surprisingly ... OA is D - I chose C .... why D ?

The argument says that the businesses catering to retired people (RP) will suffer as there is a % decrease of retired people.

C) is pointing to business in general and not business catered for retired people.

D) aptly says that even though % has decreases the number of retired people has increased.


Hence D). Hope this helps.

but how does it relates to the economy in Florida ? - In my opinion, D is out of scope.

D--actually strengthens the arguement, because it shows that relocation of retirees has increased in other states and it doesn't mention anything about Florida.

California4jx wrote:

vinaynp wrote:

California4jx wrote:very surprisingly ... OA is D - I chose C .... why D ?

The argument says that the businesses catering to retired people (RP) will suffer as there is a % decrease of retired people.

C) is pointing to business in general and not business catered for retired people.

D) aptly says that even though % has decreases the number of retired people has increased.


Hence D). Hope this helps.

but how does it relates to the economy in Florida ? - In my opinion, D is out of scope.

Let us assume that the businesses serving retired people can serve 5 retirees.

10 years back: 5% of 100 retirees used to come to Florida. Everything was great.

In 10 years, there is a drop in the % from 5% to 2%. Let us suppose that the number of retirees have increase to 100 to 300. 2% of 300 is 6. Hence, the businesses will not suffer.

This is exactly what is being offered by D).

I hope this helps.

The conclusion is based on the argument that number of retires who move to Florida has reduced when compared to last year, this reduction impacts the business.

However D aptly points that number of retires has been decreasing for the last 10 years and weakens the argument that business is not impacted by decrease in retires moving to Florida.

Hope this helps...

vinaynp wrote:

California4jx wrote:

vinaynp wrote:

California4jx wrote:very surprisingly ... OA is D - I chose C .... why D ?

The argument says that the businesses catering to retired people (RP) will suffer as there is a % decrease of retired people.

C) is pointing to business in general and not business catered for retired people.

D) aptly says that even though % has decreases the number of retired people has increased.


Hence D). Hope this helps.

but how does it relates to the economy in Florida ? - In my opinion, D is out of scope.

Let us assume that the businesses serving retired people can serve 5 retirees.

10 years back: 5% of 100 retirees used to come to Florida. Everything was great.

In 10 years, there is a drop in the % from 5% to 2%. Let us suppose that the number of retirees have increase to 100 to 300. 2% of 300 is 6. Hence, the businesses will not suffer.

This is exactly what is being offered by D).

I hope this helps.

great explanation, thanks !

getso wrote:The conclusion is based on the argument that number of retires who move to Florida has reduced when compared to last year, this reduction impacts the business.

However D aptly points that number of retires has been decreasing for the last 10 years and weakens the argument that business is not impacted by decrease in retires moving to Florida.

Hope this helps...

D--doesn't mention a decrease in retirees, rather an increase. So, I'm assuming that most will end up in Florida and, therefore, businesses will not suffer.

I will Go with option D