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.

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:

Of the people who moved from one state to another when they [#permalink]
14 Sep 2007, 20:39

1

This post was BOOKMARKED

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

5% (low)

Question Stats:

88% (01:34) correct
13% (00:01) wrong based on 18 sessions

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. Since many local businesses in SunState 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. SunState attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.

B. There are far more local businesses in SunState that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees.

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.

D.SunState has lower property taxes than any other state, making the state a magnet for retirees.

E.The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past five years.

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. Since many local businesses in SunState 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. SunState attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.

B. There are far more local businesses in SunState that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees. <--- so what? still doesn't show how this is not a negative impact on businesses that cater to retirees

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. <--- out of scope

D.SunState has lower property taxes than any other state, making the state a magnet for retirees. <--- out of scope

E.The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past five years.

was stuck between A or E.

will choose E for the following reasons -

A says that Sunstate attracts the most retirees than any other state, so they have a biggest piece of the pie. However, if the overall total went down - thus the number of retirees in Sunstate, this may hurt the businesses.

E if the total retirees have significantly increased, then even though the proportion went down 10%, the businesses are still better off than 5 years ago.

I am not sure, what is the OA?

Last edited by beckee529 on 14 Sep 2007, 22:33, edited 1 time in total.

But I still don't see how E can be the answer. So what if the number of retirees has increased, this doesn't mean that they will retire to Sunstate?
This requires me to assume something I don't really agree w/ this.

Although A isnt very good either, so E, I guess makes more sense.

But I still don't see how E can be the answer. So what if the number of retirees has increased, this doesn't mean that they will retire to Sunstate? This requires me to assume something I don't really agree w/ this.

Although A isnt very good either, so E, I guess makes more sense.

Consider this.

100 people moved out for retirement in 2005, and 20 retired to Sunstate.

In 2006, 200 people moved out for retirement and 30 reitired to sunstate.

So the percentage of people retiring to sunstate has decreased but the actual numbers have gone up.
Unless the information is provided to the contrary that the people are not retiring as much to sunstate then i don't think we have any reason to doubt this. It is a clear question of percentage and numbers.
Hope it helps.

The catch is in the wording "The total number...increased significantly over the past five years." If the total number has increased from 100 to 1000, the percent decline would not impact the absolute number.
So, choice E.

GMATBLACKBELT wrote:

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. Since many local businesses in SunState 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. SunState attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.

B. There are far more local businesses in SunState that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees.

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.

D.SunState has lower property taxes than any other state, making the state a magnet for retirees.

E.The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past five years.

clear E
reason
if for eg. 100 ppl retired and moved to other city, earlier and of this eg 30% went to the particlaure city, now it says that there has been a significant increase in the total ppl retring+moving..it can be for eg 5 fold => ppl moved of this only (30-10) % moved to this city,which is still more than what previous came..

Re: Of the people who moved from one state to another when they [#permalink]
17 Mar 2013, 00:53

This is a tricky question and I'm still not sure between A and E. Why is A wrong and E right. For me E being right requires an unncessary assumption on the part of the test taker which would assume that the number of retirees also increases in the sunstate...

That is really really iffy business. Why can we make such an assumption?
_________________

Re: Of the people who moved from one state to another when they [#permalink]
17 Mar 2013, 01:22

manimgoindowndown wrote:

This is a tricky question and I'm still not sure between A and E. Why is A wrong and E right. For me E being right requires an unncessary assumption on the part of the test taker which would assume that the number of retirees also increases in the sunstate...

That is really really iffy business. Why can we make such an assumption?

Just because Sunstate attracts the most retirees, according to answer A, does not mean that the decrease by 10% will not hurt the businesses that cater to these retirees. Consider this: Even if Sunstate attracts huuuge number of retirees every year, say 100 000 for instance, and even if the next most popular state attracts , say. 30 000, it does not matter. Businesses expect to cater to 100,000 and a reduction of 10 000 (10%) will hurt these businesses one way or another, The fact that other states attract much less retirees is irrelevent to the businesses in Sunstate

Option E makes sense because if we assume a huge total increase of retirees, the 10% decrease will be outweighted.

If Sunstate usuallly attracts 35% of 2 000 000 ppl, we have 700 000 ppl If the state now attracts only 25% , but this time, of 3 000 000 people, we have 750 000 ppl, which means that local businesses will not be hurt and the argument is weakened.

Re: Of the people who moved from one state to another when they [#permalink]
17 Mar 2013, 04:17

1

This post received KUDOS

Expert's post

manimgoindowndown wrote:

This is a tricky question and I'm still not sure between A and E. Why is A wrong and E right. For me E being right requires an unncessary assumption on the part of the test taker which would assume that the number of retirees also increases in the sunstate...

That is really really iffy business. Why can we make such an assumption?

Hi manimgoindowndown,

We have to select an answer choice that will weaken the conclusion that decline in the proportion of people retiring to SunState will cause a negative economic effect on the business serving retired people

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. Since many local businesses in SunState 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. SunState attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.

Suppose were true then this would mean that the number people retiring to SunState is greater than those do retire in other state. Greater number is good, but we are comparing the number "in SunState" this year vs last year. Even if SunState attracts more retires than other states, it has seen a 10% decrease and this will cause a decline in local businesses. To sump up, (A) makes a wrong comparison between "SunState and other states", the correct answer should give some information about the number of retirees ""last years v/s this year"

E.The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past five years.

If the total number of people who retired and moved to another state has increased then this means that the number of people corresponding to the proportion will also increase

Lets user numbers for this choice:

Lets say, last year, the total number of people retiring and moving to other states is 1000 and 100 of these are retiring to SunState. Now the proportion would be \frac{100}{1000}\frac{*100}{1} = 10%

This year this proportion has decreased by 10%, i.e. the new proportion has now become 9% (=10% decrease in the proportion). Now according to (E) the total number has increased. Lets say that the total number has increased from 1000 to 1500. Now 9% of 1500 is 135. This number is greater than the previous 100. The total number doesn't have to be 1500, but (E) in fact (among all the choices) gives us the strongest reason to weaken the conclusion, even slightly.

If we want to prove that the conclusion is true for sure, then we need to make an assumption that the increase in the total number of retirees should be such that it offsets the 10% decrease in the proportion. We just need an additional evidence that will weaken the conclusion, this evidence may or may not destroy the conclusion.

Re: Of the people who moved from one state to another when they [#permalink]
19 Mar 2013, 17:37

Vercules wrote:

manimgoindowndown wrote:

This is a tricky question and I'm still not sure between A and E. Why is A wrong and E right. For me E being right requires an unncessary assumption on the part of the test taker which would assume that the number of retirees also increases in the sunstate...

That is really really iffy business. Why can we make such an assumption?

Hi manimgoindowndown,

We have to select an answer choice that will weaken the conclusion that decline in the proportion of people retiring to SunState will cause a negative economic effect on the business serving retired people

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. Since many local businesses in SunState 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. SunState attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.

Suppose were true then this would mean that the number people retiring to SunState is greater than those do retire in other state. Greater number is good, but we are comparing the number "in SunState" this year vs last year. Even if SunState attracts more retires than other states, it has seen a 10% decrease and this will cause a decline in local businesses. To sump up, (A) makes a wrong comparison between "SunState and other states", the correct answer should give some information about the number of retirees ""last years v/s this year"

E.The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past five years.

If the total number of people who retired and moved to another state has increased then this means that the number of people corresponding to the proportion will also increase

Lets user numbers for this choice:

Lets say, last year, the total number of people retiring and moving to other states is 1000 and 100 of these are retiring to SunState. Now the proportion would be \frac{100}{1000}\frac{*100}{1} = 10%

This year this proportion has decreased by 10%, i.e. the new proportion has now become 9% (=10% decrease in the proportion). Now according to (E) the total number has increased. Lets say that the total number has increased from 1000 to 1500. Now 9% of 1500 is 135. This number is greater than the previous 100. The total number doesn't have to be 1500, but (E) in fact (among all the choices) gives us the strongest reason to weaken the conclusion, even slightly.

If we want to prove that the conclusion is true for sure, then we need to make an assumption that the increase in the total number of retirees should be such that it offsets the 10% decrease in the proportion. We just need an additional evidence that will weaken the conclusion, this evidence may or may not destroy the conclusion.

Hope this helps,

Vercules

It helped a little but I think what I'm trying to say in contexdt of your example is that how can we assume the increase in numbers offsets that decrease of 10%? Isn't that an assumption on part of the test maker?
_________________

We appreciate your kudos'

gmatclubot

Re: Of the people who moved from one state to another when they
[#permalink]
19 Mar 2013, 17:37