Critical Reasoning

Dear all,

Below Critical reasoning question from GMAT REVIEW 13th edition:

Question # 87:

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.

The OA is C.

The conclusion that the argument makes is that the business and economy of florida will be negatively effected because of the decline in retirees in Florida (while noting the premise that Florida's economy and businesses strongly rely on retirees).

In consideration of the above, how can C weaken the argument? Even if the number of retirees moving from one state to another has increased over the past 10 years (as OA C suggests), it doesn't mean that such increase is accompanied by a corresponding increase in the number of retirees in florida... It could be the case that the number of retirees in other states increased considerably which had offset a corresponding decrease in retirees in florida.

PLease let me know what you guys think.

THanks and BR,
MJ.

mjabki wrote: In consideration of the above, how can C weaken the argument? Even if the number of retirees moving from one state to another has increased over the past 10 years (as OA C suggests), it doesn't mean that such increase is accompanied by a corresponding increase in the number of retirees in florida... It could be the case that the number of retirees in other states increased considerably which had offset a corresponding decrease in retirees in florida.

PLease let me know what you guys think.

THanks and BR,
MJ.

First, official answers are not to be doubted, simply because they are always correct . This understanding will also help you a lot in learning why right answers are right and make your life easier during the prep.

We need to weaken the conclusion "these declines are likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses and therefore on the economy of Florida"

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

let us say the # of retirees increases from 100 to 100,000. And even if the share of retirees going to Florida decreases from 15% to 12%, the number of retirees going to Florida changes from 15 to 12,000.

This clearly weakens the conclusion because there is no decline in the number of retirees in the first place!

Now, coming to your point. Please remember that you do not need to 100% destroy the conclusion in weaken/strengthen problems. Instead even a mild weakening/strengthening is enough for the statement to be a weakener/strenghener.

Notice the word significantly in statement C. It gives a good idea that the number of migrating retirees has increased by leaps and bounds. There is a strong likelihood that a 3% drop in the share for Florida will not be able to offset or even come any where close to causing an actual decline in the absolute numbers for Florida. This is enough for the statement to weaken the argument.

Bingo- got it.

Thanks alot.

BR,
MJ.

Why not the option E.Please explain