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.
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.
. This understanding will also help you a lot in learning why right answers are right and make your life easier during the prep.
