Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 22 Oct 2014, 23:07

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

In the United States, of the people who moved from one state

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 01 Feb 2010
Posts: 268
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 2

Re: CR-weaken,please help me [#permalink] New post 08 Feb 2010, 20:51
Answer(A) states that Florida attracts more people than any other state when they retire but it does not negate the statement mentioned in question as this can always be true and still the statement mentioned in question is also true, still Florida is the most prefered destination even after 3% decrease.

Also statement D only strengthens the question statement.

Only statement C negates the question statement.
Manhattan GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Affiliations: ManhattanGMAT
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 354
Location: San Francisco
Followers: 340

Kudos [?]: 745 [0], given: 11

Re: CR-weaken,please help me [#permalink] New post 09 Feb 2010, 17:38
Hey All,

While plenty of people have the right idea on this one, a lot of people still sound confused. Let's walk through this step by step, in order to see why C is in fact the correct answer.

Conclusion: Declines will have a negative economic effect on business
Premise: Of retirees who move states, percentage retiring to Florida down 3% over last ten years
Assumption: The percent down means there are fewer people in Florida (it's also worth noting that the answer COULD relate to how many people FROM Florida are staying there when they retire)

(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.
Problem: The distance that people travel will not affect how many people retire to Florida. Every state is some distance away from every other state. Florida is not inherently "further away" then other states, even though it's in the corner of the country. A dangerous trap, because if you see Florida as "remote", it may sound like more people might move there.

(B) People were more likely to retire to North Carolina from another state last year than people were
ten years ago.
Problem: This would strengthen the argument, if anything, because now more people are going to NC. Remember, we want to WEAKEN the argument that business in Florida will suffer.

(C) The number of people who moved from one state to another when they retired has increased significantly
over the past ten years.
Answer: Now we have way more people ("increased significantly") moving from one state to another in the past ten years. This means that even if the overall percentage is down 3%, the actual # of people moving to Florida has likely increased.

(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.
Problem: This answer seemed very popular on the boards here, but this actually strengthens the argument again. We want businesses in Florida NOT to suffer. If more people are leaving Florida now than before, that means businesses will have EVEN FEWER customers.

(E) Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other
state.
Problem: This doesn't change the fact that the percentage is down 3%, which we need to address in the correct answer choice.

Hope that helps!
_________________


Tommy Wallach | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | San Francisco


Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Reviews

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Posts: 30
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 2

Re: CR-weaken,please help me [#permalink] New post 09 Feb 2010, 19:10
In the given question, I do not see mention of 'distance' in option A. Had it been that there is distance mentioned then certainly this option 'A' would be out.

So why should we eliminate A when there is no mention of distance? Can somebody explain?
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 13 Dec 2009
Posts: 79
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 20

Re: CR-weaken,please help me [#permalink] New post 10 Feb 2010, 21:27
TommyWallach wrote:
Hey All,

While plenty of people have the right idea on this one, a lot of people still sound confused. Let's walk through this step by step, in order to see why C is in fact the correct answer.

Conclusion: Declines will have a negative economic effect on business
Premise: Of retirees who move states, percentage retiring to Florida down 3% over last ten years
Assumption: The percent down means there are fewer people in Florida (it's also worth noting that the answer COULD relate to how many people FROM Florida are staying there when they retire)

(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.
Problem: The distance that people travel will not affect how many people retire to Florida. Every state is some distance away from every other state. Florida is not inherently "further away" then other states, even though it's in the corner of the country. A dangerous trap, because if you see Florida as "remote", it may sound like more people might move there.

(B) People were more likely to retire to North Carolina from another state last year than people were
ten years ago.
Problem: This would strengthen the argument, if anything, because now more people are going to NC. Remember, we want to WEAKEN the argument that business in Florida will suffer.

(C) The number of people who moved from one state to another when they retired has increased significantly
over the past ten years.
Answer: Now we have way more people ("increased significantly") moving from one state to another in the past ten years. This means that even if the overall percentage is down 3%, the actual # of people moving to Florida has likely increased.

(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.
Problem: This answer seemed very popular on the boards here, but this actually strengthens the argument again. We want businesses in Florida NOT to suffer. If more people are leaving Florida now than before, that means businesses will have EVEN FEWER customers.

(E) Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other
state.
Problem: This doesn't change the fact that the percentage is down 3%, which we need to address in the correct answer choice.

Hope that helps!

Hey Tommy!
I absolutely agree with your reasoning and I've chosen the same answer, but your explanation doesn't fit the answer choices at the top of the post. Please check and edit your reply. :)
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 01 Feb 2010
Posts: 268
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 2

Re: CR-weaken,please help me [#permalink] New post 11 Feb 2010, 07:28
ilhht wrote:
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 noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses.

Which of the following, 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 far 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 moved to another state for 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.

[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
D


I pick D?? please help me, thanks.



These are choices mentioned in original question, as per this main purpose of this paragraph seems negative economic effect. This negative economic effect is happening because of local business which mostly cater to old people is losing.

If we go with this reasoning then as per C, which says that major buisness cater to tourists and not to old people. So this negates the main statement.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 13 Dec 2009
Posts: 79
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 20

Re: CR-weaken,please help me [#permalink] New post 11 Feb 2010, 08:56
bangalorian2000 wrote:
ilhht wrote:
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 noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses.

Which of the following, 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 far 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 moved to another state for 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.

[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
D


I pick D?? please help me, thanks.



These are choices mentioned in original question, as per this main purpose of this paragraph seems negative economic effect. This negative economic effect is happening because of local business which mostly cater to old people is losing.

If we go with this reasoning then as per C, which says that major buisness cater to tourists and not to old people. So this negates the main statement.

We're not interested in any businesses other than THESE particular businesses that cater to retirees. Saying that major business won't be affected doesn't mean that business catering to retirees won't be affected. So, C is out of scope.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 01 Feb 2010
Posts: 268
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 2

Re: CR-weaken,please help me [#permalink] New post 11 Feb 2010, 09:23
Igor010 wrote:

We're not interested in any businesses other than THESE particular businesses that cater to retirees. Saying that major business won't be affected doesn't mean that business catering to retirees won't be affected. So, C is out of scope.


What C means is that the major local buisness is by the tourists so the loss by business catering to retirees will not be "noticeable". But it is mentioned in question statement that the economic impact of buisness loss will be "noticeable".
So C is directly contradicting question statement.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 11 Jan 2010
Posts: 6
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

Re: CR-weaken,please help me [#permalink] New post 11 Feb 2011, 07:43
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 noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses.

Which of the following, 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 far 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 moved to another state for 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.

The net idea in the argument is: decreasing percentage of retired people who move to Florida weakens local service targeted to these people.
To influence this segment of business there should be decrease in absolute number of customers.
To weaken the argument there should be the proof of increased number of customers.
A. Florida remains the leading destination for retired. (-) no information on actual number
B. People tend to leave Florida. (-) irrelevant
C. There are other market segments. (-) irrelevant
D. Number of migrating retirees has increased. (hold) this opposes relative decrease with absolute increase
E. Number of migrating retirees from Florida has increased. (-) this explains one of the reason for the percentage decrease
Of all statements only D opposes the argument
GMAT Instructor
avatar
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 978
Location: Toronto
Followers: 261

Kudos [?]: 707 [0], given: 3

Re: CR-weaken,please help me [#permalink] New post 11 Feb 2011, 14:03
TommyWallach wrote:
While plenty of people have the right idea on this one, a lot of people still sound confused. Let's walk through this step by step, in order to see why C is in fact the correct answer.

[...]

(C) The number of people who moved from one state to another when they retired has increased significantly
over the past ten years.
Answer: Now we have way more people ("increased significantly") moving from one state to another in the past ten years. This means that even if the overall percentage is down 3%, the actual # of people moving to Florida has likely increased.

(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.
Problem: This answer seemed very popular on the boards here, but this actually strengthens the argument again. We want businesses in Florida NOT to suffer. If more people are leaving Florida now than before, that means businesses will have EVEN FEWER customers.


You've somehow jumbled up the answer choices. D was popular on the boards here because D was the right answer; it's the answer choice you've called 'C' above.
_________________

Nov 2011: After years of development, I am now making my advanced Quant books and high-level problem sets available for sale. Contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com for details.

Private GMAT Tutor based in Toronto

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 11 Feb 2011
Posts: 80
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Re: CR-weaken,please help me [#permalink] New post 11 Feb 2011, 15:22
nice one...ans is D
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Posts: 208
Schools: HEC Paris, , Tepper
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 8

Re: CR-weaken,please help me [#permalink] New post 11 Feb 2011, 20:49
The logic of the passage hinges on this:

-Local businesses in FL who cater to retirees are negatively affected, because the % of retirees relocating to FL has decreased over past 10 years

Thus, answer C is clearly "out of scope", because the businesses included in this logic are only these catering for the retirees.

On the other hand, answer D clearly attacks the logic of the argument, because if you say "well, even the percentage of the retirees relocating to FL has decreased, the actual number of retirees has increased significantly", you have successfully undermined the weakness in the logic.

Notice also that the number of percentage decrease is 3 %, in other words a quite insignificant number. In Answer D, it says that the total number of relocating retirees has significantly increased. This is a clear "cue" by the GMAT, that the actual number of retirees surpasses the ones lost in 3 % decrease.

Hope this helps.
_________________

If you like my post, a kudos is not expected but appreciated

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 16 Dec 2010
Posts: 7
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 1

Re: CR-weaken,please help me [#permalink] New post 11 Feb 2011, 22:15
correct answer has to be "D". as the question is to find out options which will weaken the aurgument and option C attempts to weaken the conclusion that cannot be properly deduced... as there could be more business other than for retirees but not as profitable as those meant for retirees hence nothing can be said and it is not explicitly stated in argument or that of conclusion.

so the only way we can weaken is to negate the argument...and as we know less in % does not mean fewer numbers... so there is possiblity that though % has decreased but numbers have increased due to which economy will not suffer..

hence D
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 08 Nov 2010
Posts: 422
WE 1: Business Development
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 161

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: CR-weaken,please help me [#permalink] New post 12 Feb 2011, 02:06
D - when the total number of retired ppl that change places grow dramatically,
the -3% is less important - means the total number going to florida is getting bigger - not smaller.
_________________

Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 07 Jul 2010
Posts: 101
Location: Hanoi, Vietnam
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 18

Re: CR-weaken,please help me [#permalink] New post 12 Feb 2011, 07:38
The answer is D. Because "the percentage who retired to Florida has decreased by three percentage points over the past ten years", we don't know exactly if the real number has increased or decreased. D states that the total number has increased significantly => D weakens the argument.
_________________

Hung M.Tran
Faculty of Banking and Finance,
National Economics University of Vietnam


Follow me on Twitter : http://twitter.com/AndyTranHung

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 08 Nov 2010
Posts: 422
WE 1: Business Development
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 35 [0], given: 161

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: CR-weaken,please help me [#permalink] New post 12 Feb 2011, 08:06
Geez, Hanoi. Nice to meet you andysimple.
_________________

Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: Trying to get into the illustrious 700 club!
Joined: 18 Oct 2010
Posts: 79
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 58

Re: CR-weaken,please help me [#permalink] New post 16 Feb 2011, 18:38
After much thought I agree with D.

Let's say retirees went to Florida initially at 10% and that equaled 100 people that went. The next year only 7% of people are coming into Florida but the key take home is 6% of what? Since it has been a SIGNIFICANT rise we can hypothetically say 7% of 10,000 people came the next year. If more people come in and the percentage shrinks it does not necessarily mean local businesses will suffer.
_________________

I'm trying to not just answer the problem but to explain how I came up with my answer. If I am incorrect or you have a better method please PM me your thoughts. Thanks!

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Posts: 208
Schools: HEC Paris, , Tepper
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 30 [0], given: 8

Re: CR-weaken,please help me [#permalink] New post 16 Feb 2011, 18:49
In general, comparing percentage and actual number is one of GMAT's favorite tricks for 600-700 level CR questions. If this is your target GMAT score, you should be very comfortable facing these problems.

If you are a "math genius" and find the verbals more difficult, try think in this way:

-if this was a DS question, would you have concluded sufficient a statement that induces a change in actual number of people from a statement that talks about percentage?
-> Obviously, you would conclude the statement "insufficient"

The percentage/actual number trick applies for the verbals and the quants, making it even more important to master.
_________________

If you like my post, a kudos is not expected but appreciated

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 21 Dec 2010
Posts: 658
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 84 [0], given: 51

Re: CR-weaken,please help me [#permalink] New post 27 Apr 2011, 06:18
this question is tricky yes. but D may weaken the argument as total number of people has increased.

say 10 yrs back 100 people used to retire , and say 6 % used to settle in florida that means 6 people.
now this year 1000 people retire , and 3 % decrease means 3% settle in florida. that is 30 people.

so the conclusion is destroyed in this case.
_________________

What is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy.

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 May 2011
Posts: 243
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 85 [1] , given: 8

Re: CR-weaken,please help me [#permalink] New post 09 Jul 2011, 10:11
1
This post received
KUDOS
(A) Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.INCORRECT - information doesn't say anything about retirees, hence irrelevant
(B) The number of people who move out of Florida to accept employment in other states has increased over the past ten years. INCORRECT - these are non retirees, hence doesn't help address affect on businesses that cater to retirees
(C) There are far more local businesses in Florida that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees.INCORRECT - this is an irrelevant comparison, how does this tell us anything about what caused the decline
(D) The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past ten years. - CORRECT - breaking down the causality. this could be the alternate cause to the the same effect. i.e. Say in 2001, out of 100 total retirees, 50 retired to florida (50%). Today in 2011, out of 200 total retires, 94 retired to florida (47% - 3% ppt less than before). This is an increase. Hence, authors argument fails miserably.
(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. - INCORRECT - sort of strengthens the argument
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Feb 2012
Posts: 195
Location: United States
GPA: 3.08
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 104

Re: In the United States, of the people who moved from one state [#permalink] New post 16 Feb 2012, 18:50
Posted this without noticing the two pages! My logic seems quite redundant and similar to the post above!

The reason why I chose D was because it implies that the total volume of people moving into florida may have increased, regardless of the drop of 3%. Say 100 people moved to another state for retirement 10 years ago, and 10% went to Florida, total = 10 people. But with the information provided by D, the total number of people moving has increased, so lets say 100 became 200. If the number of people who moved to Florida dropped by 3% points to 7%, the total would now b 14, and increase compared to 10 years ago.

Hope my rationale makes sense!
Re: In the United States, of the people who moved from one state   [#permalink] 16 Feb 2012, 18:50
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
In the United States, of the people who moved from one state shinewine 6 28 Aug 2006, 03:04
In the United States, of the people who moved from one state vivek123 5 06 Aug 2005, 05:32
1 In the United States, of the people who moved from one state jma123 13 22 Feb 2005, 18:18
In the United States, of the people who moved from one state nocilis 6 28 Jan 2005, 21:52
7 Experts publish their posts in the topic In the United States, of the people who moved from one state DLMD 9 16 Jan 2005, 15:34
Display posts from previous: Sort by

In the United States, of the people who moved from one state

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 43 posts ] 



GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.