Critical Reasoning

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?

1.SunState attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.
2There are far more local businesses in SunState that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees.
3.The number of retirees who have moved out of SunState to accept re-employment in other states has increased over the past five years.
4.SunState has lower property taxes than any other state, making the state a magnet for retirees.
5.The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past five years.


pl explain 1/4/or 5.... thanks.

advita 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?

1.SunState attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.
2There are far more local businesses in SunState that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees.
3.The number of retirees who have moved out of SunState to accept re-employment in other states has increased over the past five years.
4.SunState has lower property taxes than any other state, making the state a magnet for retirees.
5.The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past five years.


pl explain 1/4/or 5.... thanks.

IMO 5

The argument states the proportion of retiress decreased so resturants will have noticeably negative economic effect
Assumption : number of peoples retiring to SunState are decreasing because proportion decreased.
Reasoning: Proportion could also decrease due to increase in number of retiress

Example

Before: Total no. of retirees 100, No. of retirees moving to SunState 10..proportion 10/100
After : Total no. of retirees 120, No. of retirees moving to SunState 10..proportion 10/120 ->> proportion decreased
but the no. of retirees are same. Thus, weakens.

HTH!

advita 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?

1.SunState attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.
2There are far more local businesses in SunState that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees.
3.The number of retirees who have moved out of SunState to accept re-employment in other states has increased over the past five years.
4.SunState has lower property taxes than any other state, making the state a magnet for retirees.
5.The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past five years.

pl explain 1/4/or 5.... thanks.

The question stem says that economy will suffer as a result of few retiree to carry out businesses. We have to find a premise that number of retiree will not reduce.

Option 1: What the state does is irrelevant. we have to find whether economy will decline??
Option 2: The relative contribution of each to economy is unknown. hence indecisive
Option 3: Irrelevant. question concerns retiree moving in to take up job in state
Option 4: a reason to attract retirees. irrelevant to task at hand.
Option 5: this explains the reason that number of retirees have not reduced. may be the percentage is low but actual number of retirees is not less than before.

thanx

advita 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?

1.SunState attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.
2There are far more local businesses in SunState that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees.
3.The number of retirees who have moved out of SunState to accept re-employment in other states has increased over the past five years.
4.SunState has lower property taxes than any other state, making the state a magnet for retirees.
5.The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past five years.


pl explain 1/4/or 5.... thanks.

the key here, as with any CR question, is to figure out first what the right answer SHOULD do, and only then go and find it. Come up with an idea of what you're looking for based on the question stem and the argument, and your chances of success are much increased.

Here, we are told that the proportion of Sunstate retirees out of all retirees has decreased by 10%. The conclusion is that this decline will have a negative impact on economy.
since you're trying to weaken the argument, think: why is this argument wrong? How could the facts still be right (decline in proportion) but the conclusion be wrong? (no negative effect on economy from less retirees?). In other words, the right answer choice should show that despite the dwindling proportion of retirees who move to sunstate, the absolute number of retirees who move there remain will remain unchanged, or even grow. This can only really happen because the argument makes the mistake of equating lower proportions with lower real numbers, but that's only true if the proportions are taken from the same larger population. If E is right, and the overall retiree population has grown significantly over the past years, then even a smaller proportion of a larger population can still mean that the same number of retirees are reaching Sunstate - which would mean the dwindling proportion does not have to mean dwindling actual numbers.

1 is irrelevant, as it compares the number of people who move to Sunstate to the same number in other states - it can be true, and still allow that less retirees move to sunstate, which would bring the economy down. Let's say that Sunstate attracts 100 million retirees, while all other states attract 20 million combined. If Sunstate now attracts 90 million instead of 100 million, it still attracts more retirees than any other state, but there's no question that Sunstate's economy will suffer from the decline.

4 The problem here is that an answer choice cannot contradict the premises of the argument. You cannot weaken an argument by weakening a premise - those are taken at face value, and the right answer choice is one which weakens the conclusion. In other words, we are forced to reconcile the two: despite the lower property taxes in Sunstate, the proportion of retirees that move to Sunstate is still dwindling. Thus, 4 does nothing to weaken the argument and convince us that the economy will not suffer.