BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions
Start free 5-day trial
Read 559 reviewsTarget Test Prep

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

SunState retirees

Expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 431
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:32 amFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 16 times
by kanha81 » Wed Jul 01, 2009 10:16 am
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?

SunState attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.

There are far more local businesses in SunState that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees.

The number of retirees who have moved out of SunState to accept re-employment in other states has increased over the past five years.

SunState has lower property taxes than any other state, making the state a magnet for retirees.

The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past five years.

Can't seem to fathom the correct answer! Please help me understand your reasoning.
Want to Beat GMAT.
Always do what you're afraid to do. Whoooop GMAT
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:55 am

Re: SunState retirees

by arunpp » Wed Jul 01, 2009 10:46 am
kanha81 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?

SunState attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.

There are far more local businesses in SunState that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees.

The number of retirees who have moved out of SunState to accept re-employment in other states has increased over the past five years.

SunState has lower property taxes than any other state, making the state a magnet for retirees.

The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past five years.

Can't seem to fathom the correct answer! Please help me understand your reasoning.
Hi,

This is my first post in beatthegmat, so kindly excuse me in case you find something wrong with my post/approach.

IMO, option B is the answer. There are two loop holes in this reasoning. 1. It tries to mix percentage with numbers. 2. Another hole in the argument is local businesses catering retirees VS all local businesses. So, considering these, A - wrong because of reason 1, C - strengthens the conclusion rather than weaken it, D - "so what?" option. Still, the fact is, incoming retirees have reduced by 10% in the past 5 years, E - Same reason as stated for option D. So, only option B correctly identifies a point which weakens the argument. If B is true, the economic effect on local businesses will be either unaffected or improve. But this is under the dangerous assumption that tourists are more in number and/or contribute more to the economy than retirees do. But considering the remaining options, this option stands out.

Pls post the OA.



Thanks,
Arun
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 3:55 am
Thanked: 17 times

Re: SunState retirees

by madhur_ahuja » Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:25 am
kanha81 wrote:

The number of retirees who have moved out of SunState to accept re-employment in other states has increased over the past five years.
.
IMO C.

If the already retired people are moving out of SunState then the 10% decrease is not due to less people moving SunState when they are retired.

Although this does not undermines the conclusion, but it does weakens the argument as a whole.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 160
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 7:10 pm
Thanked: 10 times
GMAT Score:600

by dendude » Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:58 am
IMO E

The argument is, out of the total number of ppl switching states, the proportion going to SunState has decreased by 10%
But if the total number of ppl itself has increased overall, assuming the same proportion (with the 10% decrease) going to SunState, the actual number of ppl going to SunState would probably increase.

Eg. 20% of the total X went to Sunstate but over the 5 years it has become 10% of X
But X itself has increased significantly, maybe by Y, so there could be an increase in the number going to SunState
i.e 10% of (X+Y) could be greater than 20% of X

Not sure if I am explaining it clearly. But it seems pretty clear in my head.
And thats why I chose E.
Whats the OA?
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 472
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 6:54 pm
Thanked: 56 times

Re: SunState retirees

by ssmiles08 » Wed Jul 01, 2009 1:09 pm
It's a tie b/w A and D

so IMO A.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 1:09 am

by Kenen750 » Wed Jul 01, 2009 1:49 pm
Could anyone please explain why "A" is wrong?
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Legendary Member
Posts: 1161
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:52 amFollowed by: 1 member
Location: Sydney
Thanked: 23 times

by mehravikas » Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:20 pm
IMO - B.

Not an expert but here are my two cents on why A is wrong -

Option A suggests that sunstate attracts more retirees than any other state. Lets say the number of retirees is 100000 in 5 years and there has been a 10% decline.

so even if it is attracts the highest number of retirees, still the businesses can suffer due to decline in overall percentage.
Kenen750 wrote:Could anyone please explain why "A" is wrong?
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 385
Joined: Sun May 24, 2009 3:55 pm
Thanked: 11 times
GMAT Score:740

by Domnu » Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:16 pm
Answers C and E can be thrown out since they bolster the argument. Among A, B, and D, B can be eliminated, since this is out of scope... we aren't concerned with the businesses involved in tourism; we are concerned with those involved with retirees (the passage specifically refers to these businesses). Between A and D, I would choose A, since it seems a bit stronger. However, D may be the better choice, since it also involves those retirees who choose to stay in SunState.
Have you wondered how you could have found such a treasure? -T
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 575
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:58 amFollowed by: 4 members
Location: India
Thanked: 18 times
GMAT Score:710

Re: SunState retirees

by rahulg83 » Wed Jul 01, 2009 7:11 pm
kanha81 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?

SunState attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.

There are far more local businesses in SunState that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees.

The number of retirees who have moved out of SunState to accept re-employment in other states has increased over the past five years.

SunState has lower property taxes than any other state, making the state a magnet for retirees.

The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past five years.

Can't seem to fathom the correct answer! Please help me understand your reasoning.
Surely E
Argument says, just because proportion of people moving to SunState has decreased, local business will have a significant negative effect. But what if total number of retired people moving from one state to another has increased significantly? We can not say then that the number of retired people moving to Sunstate has dipped.
E does that...
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 166
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:16 pm
Location: India

by Mayur Sand » Wed Jul 01, 2009 7:20 pm
what's OA ?
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 5:55 am
Location: Hull, UK
Thanked: 1 times

by aspirant_gmat » Thu Jul 02, 2009 1:58 am
I totally agree with rahulg83. The answer should be E.
If the the total number of retired people have increased significantly then
probably this increase will offset the 10 percent decrease in the overall proportion retiring to Sunstate.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 431
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:32 amFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 16 times

by kanha81 » Thu Jul 02, 2009 3:23 am
dendude wrote:IMO E

The argument is, out of the total number of ppl switching states, the proportion going to SunState has decreased by 10%
But if the total number of ppl itself has increased overall, assuming the same proportion (with the 10% decrease) going to SunState, the actual number of ppl going to SunState would probably increase.

Eg. 20% of the total X went to Sunstate but over the 5 years it has become 10% of X
But X itself has increased significantly, maybe by Y, so there could be an increase in the number going to SunState
i.e 10% of (X+Y) could be greater than 20% of X

Not sure if I am explaining it clearly. But it seems pretty clear in my head.
And thats why I chose E.
Whats the OA?
Nice Explanation dendude. OA [spoiler][E][/spoiler]
Want to Beat GMAT.
Always do what you're afraid to do. Whoooop GMAT
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 8:20 pm
Location: fssf
Thanked: 17 times

by krazy800 » Fri Jul 03, 2009 1:12 am
Kanha,
Could u also let us know the source of the question?

Thanks for a good post!
Aiming High
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:57 am
Thanked: 7 times
GMAT Score:720

by gmat_dest » Tue Jul 07, 2009 10:16 am
A variant of the question is in GMATPrep I guess.

Anyway, the correct answer is E.

Always understand the difference between raw numbers and percentages
whenever you see words like proportion and percentage in the stimulus and the question stem happens to be a Weakening one.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 160
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:09 pmFollowed by: 1 member
Thanked: 1 times

by Sharma_Gaurav » Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:59 pm
Agree with answer E

Althought first thought of A ,
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Post new topic Post Reply