Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
In the United States, of the people who moved from one state [#permalink]
13 Jan 2012, 11:17
67% (01:42) correct
33% (01:10) wrong based on 9 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
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, this decline is likely to have a noticeable negative economic effect on these businesses. Which of the follow, if true, most seriously weakens the argument? A. Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state. B. The number of people who move out of Florida to accept employment in other states has increased over the past ten years. C. There are more local businesses in Florida that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees. D. The total number of people who retired and move to another state fro their retirement has increased significantly over the past ten years. E. 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.
I don't agree with the OA, so I would like to understand ...
I get C as the asnwer...no tsure why it would be D...its clear that what weakens the argument would be a reason that the economy would not be negatively impacted due to a decline of retirees moving to Florida.
IMO it has to be D. Here is how - The narrative talks about the point percentage decrease in the retirees. Hence any option that speaks specifically of the 'actual number' of retirees going up will weaken the conclusion since it will attack the premise ( number of retirees impacting the flourishing of local businesses in this case). Lets look at the options: A) Florida still attaracts more number of retirees that come here for settlement, however still the percentage is down as per the narrative. This does not give a clear indication whether the actual number of retirees has gone done or up. Maybe, the number of people retiring has decreased..does not weaken significantly B) No impact - irrelevant c) No impact as it does not talk about the businesses in question D) Correct choice - The Number of retirees has significanly increased. Still the percentage is down by only 3 points. Implying even though retirees are moving to other states, the actual number of retirees coming to florida has increased. Weakens the conclusion hence the argument. E) No impact.
I had a tough choice between A and D... C talks about businesses that cater to tourists and not specifically to the retirees which makes it non impacting to the conclusion on the narrative.
I still don't understand why C has no impact/no relation to the conclusion. The conclusion, to me, is that because businesses cater to retirees and the % of retirees going to Florida has decreased, there will be a negative impact on the economy. However, if they cater to tourists more than retirees, it shouldnt impact becuase it says nothing about less tourists...D is still not making sense to me..
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, this decline is likely to have a noticeable negative economic effect on these businesses. Which of the follow, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
The conclusion is "Since many local businesses in Florida cater to retirees, this decline is likely to have a noticeable negative economic effect on these businesses." The key word here is "these". The conclusion only talks about the negative impact on the businesses which cater to retirees and not about the economic impact on the economy as a whole. D makes sense because it specifically talks about the actual number of retirees increasing and hence negates the premise of the percentage going down. For eg. 10 years ago - Number of retirees = 100 % moving to florida - 53 Actual number moving to florida - 53
Today Number of retirees - 1000 (significantly higher) percentage moving to florida - 50 Actual number moving to florida - 500
Hence the actual number has gone up 10 times. Hope this helps.
Time to play the game...
Re: Florida Retirees
13 Jan 2012, 12:35