hemant_rajput wrote: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.


Can someone please explain me what actually this passage is saying? I'm having hard time comprehending the passage.

It says :-

The percentage of total retired population who are moving from one state to another, those who are moving to Florida after retirement has decreased by three percentage points over the past ten years. Now since many businesses in Florida cater to these retired population, so these businesses are impacted because fewer retired ppl are moving to Florida and hence impacting its overall economy.

Let me know in case you need any further clarification !!

Check my posts here:

https://www.beatthegmat.com/weaken-probl ... 52334.html
https://www.beatthegmat.com/mgmat-simila ... 09876.html

Anticipate an answer.

Some number of people who retire move to another state when they retire. Call them moving retirees. The % of moving retirees who moved to FL decreased by 3% over the last 10 years. That caused problems for businesses (those that cater to retirees). Those businesses now have fewer customers.

Argument in the paragraph: A decrease in the % of moving retirees who move to FL hurts businesses that cater to retirees.



What would weaken that argument?

Disputing the cause would weaken the argument. But disputing that fewer moving retirees move to FL would destroy the argument completely.

(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.

Did they also wear hats? Wearing hats matters as much as how far they traveled. This doesn't affect the argument.

(B) People were more likely to retire to North Carolina from another state last year than people were ten years ago.

We're talking about FL businesses. This is nice to know. But no effect.


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

Ah ha! This destroys the argument. Businesses are booming, because there are more retirees entering FL. Example, if there were 1000 moving retirees, and the % that moved to FL decreased from 10% to 7%, that would be a drop from 100 to 70. But if over the same period the number of moving retirees increased to 10,000, there would be a rise in total number moving to FL from 100 (10% of 1000) to 700 (7% of 10000).

(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.

This weakens the cause side of the argument. Retirees are leaving FL too, so it isn't just that fewer moving retirees move to FL that is hurting businesses. But the businesses are still hurting.

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

So? If the % is going down, that's still bad.

D weakens the argument.

C destroys the argument. The answer is C.