In the United States, of the people who moved from one state : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) - Page 2
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 24 Jan 2017, 09:29

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

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

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

### Show Tags

08 Feb 2010, 19:37
perseverance wrote:
In case anyone is interested, here is a more current discussion of the above question. However, the answer choices seems to be slightly different/jumbled.

in-the-united-states-88321.html

The option A in the example in given link is different that the option A in this example. I will still go with A for this example. For example in the link, I will certainly not go with A.

Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Feb 2010
Posts: 267
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

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
Affiliations: ManhattanGMAT
Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 354
Location: San Francisco
Followers: 497

Kudos [?]: 1317 [0], given: 11

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 20 Oct 2009
Posts: 30
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 13 Dec 2009
Posts: 79
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 20

### Show Tags

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!
Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Feb 2010
Posts: 267
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

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

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
Joined: 13 Dec 2009
Posts: 79
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 20

### Show Tags

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

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
Joined: 01 Feb 2010
Posts: 267
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 2

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 11 Jan 2010
Posts: 6
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

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 Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1183
Followers: 422

Kudos [?]: 1512 [0], given: 4

### Show Tags

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.
_________________

GMAT Tutor in Toronto

If you are looking for online GMAT math tutoring, or if you are interested in buying my advanced Quant books and problem sets, please contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

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

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

### Show Tags

11 Feb 2011, 15:22
nice one...ans is D
Manager
Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Posts: 208
Schools: HEC Paris, , Tepper
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 8

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 16 Dec 2010
Posts: 7
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 08 Nov 2010
Posts: 417
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 106 [0], given: 161

### Show Tags

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.
_________________
Manager
Joined: 07 Jul 2010
Posts: 101
Location: Hanoi, Vietnam
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 49 [0], given: 18

### Show Tags

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

Senior Manager
Joined: 08 Nov 2010
Posts: 417
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 106 [0], given: 161

### Show Tags

12 Feb 2011, 08:06
Geez, Hanoi. Nice to meet you andysimple.
_________________
Manager
Status: Trying to get into the illustrious 700 club!
Joined: 18 Oct 2010
Posts: 79
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 58

### Show Tags

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

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 8

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 21 Dec 2010
Posts: 649
Followers: 17

Kudos [?]: 219 [0], given: 51

### Show Tags

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.

Manager
Joined: 02 Feb 2012
Posts: 204
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 770 Q49 V47
GPA: 3.08
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 105

Re: In the United States, of the people who moved from one state [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 45 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
6 In the United States, of the people who moved from one state 4 14 Dec 2011, 11:16
18 In the united states, of the people who moved from one state 12 06 Sep 2010, 08:59
8 In the United States, of the people who moved from one state 15 22 Dec 2009, 11:54
In the United States, of the people who moved from one state 15 30 Apr 2009, 13:52
In the United States, of the people who moved from one state 3 31 Aug 2007, 22:30
Display posts from previous: Sort by