I answered this question wrongly. In spite of that fact, I am posting my flawed solving process for others to see.
Premise 1 - Of the people who moved from one state to another when they retired, the proportion who retired to SunState has decreased by 10 percent over the past five years
Premise 2 - Since many local businesses in SunState cater to retirees
Conclusion - this decline is likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses
Any option which weakens the conclusion or weakens the premise on which the conclusion is based is our answer
A) SunState attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state. (This strengthens the argument, eliminate)
B) There are far more local businesses in SunState that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees. (This options weakens the premise on which our conclusion is based and is thus our answer )
C) The number of retirees who have moved out of SunState to accept re-employment in other states has increased over the past five years. (This strengthens the argument, eliminate)
D) SunState has lower property taxes than any other state, making the state a magnet for retirees. (Irrelevant)
E) The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past five years. (Although this number has increased they have not moved to SunState, eliminate)
Thanks for posting this – I actually think looking at common mistakes made on CR is a more useful way to learn than just reading correct solutions.
Let me try to explain exactly why this logic for (B) isn't quite correct.
One general point: we're not allowed to question premises on CR
. This is a common technique used in everyday arguments (claiming your opponent has his facts wrong), but the GMAT is more interested in the internal
logic of arguments. The only piece open to attacks are the assumptions
Second major point, answer (B) does NOT actually attack a premise. Pay attention to the exact wording
of the conclusion, the "decline is likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these
businesses" The real issue is that the conclusion is talking about "these" businesses, by which we mean the ones that cater to retirees. So, the existence of tourism-related businesses is completely irrelevant!
So what is that assumption in the argument? Notice that the premises are all about percentages
, but the conclusion is about the actual number
of retirees (the business will hurt because they have fewer customers). This is one of the GMAT's favorite kind of assumptions to test. Just because the percentage is down doesn't mean the actual number is down. Look for an answer choice that exploits this problem, and only (E) does the trick!
Mark Sullivan | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Seattle, WA
Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile