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

		00:00
	GMAT Timer...

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.

I pick D?? please help me, thanks.

Yes, it's certainly D. Answer choice C is the one which is out of scope. The question only pertains to 'these businesses', the ones which cater to retirees. Businesses which cater to tourists aren't relevant to the question.

(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

IMO, it should be C. It confirms that the local businesses do not just rely on retirees.

C for me

D is actually OOS(out of scope) as
here we have to show that local businesses in florida(all other places are OOS here)will thrive even though retired guys are down by %-age point
C says far more local businesses in Florida that cater to tourists -->hence will continue to flourish
hence C

In my point of view is D. Have you got the OA??

the OA is C

No I dnt think OA is C. check again frm ur source. This question has been discssed many times b4. OA shld be D.
This is a %age trap question.If the totall no of ppl has increase in last ten years then te decrease in % will not matter. suppose no of ppl who migrated ten yers ago was 100 and the percentage who retired to Florida was 10%. tehn total no of ppl is 10. now increase the total no to 1000 then whteher the % decreases, sstill more no of ppl is more

Thanks ritula, I would not understand this problem if the answer was c

I think D is the correct answer. This is the only answer which weakens the argument.

I also think the answer should be D. As ritula points out a decrease in a share doesn't have to imply a decrease in absolute figures as long as a raise in the basis (here the total number of people who move from one state to another when they retire) can offset this effect.

Agree with ritula.....

D is incorrect because we are not concerned about people in other states. The conclusion focuses on the economy in Florida (not any other state).
Agree with C.

We certainly are concerned with people in other states - those people in other states who retire and move to Florida. That's the population the stem is discussing.

i think ans should be B. florida business caters on retire people. conclusion says because of retire people increase local business will not do well. but as said in A. if from other states more retire people are attract to florida then the retire person population will rise than out going people. hence instead business will do well.

sorry, pl. read ANS-A, instead of B.

http://www.urch.com/forums/gmat-critica ... orida.html

Posted OA is wrong. It should be D.

Clearly 'C' is irrelevant.

'D' is tricky and looks attractive but question remains what if most of the people who retires are from Florida itself? Also there is one better option available as explained below.

Answer 'A' most logically weakens the statement by saying that Florida is still a great destination for retiree. There is drop in terms of sheer numbers & percentage as well (of inflow) in last ten years, however there is no negative inflow but highest inflow in numbers than any other state. This inflow will provide supoprt to local businesses in florida than negatively affect those local businesses.

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