Another explanation : Assumption is a bridge between evidence and conclusion. It supports the conclusion.

Where as inference can be drawn out from the facts and the passage supports the inference.

Option D has a flaw in it.
What do we mean by "significant number" of retirees moving to another state?

Lets say, initially there were 1000 retirees out of which 10%, ie. 100 retirees have moved to Florida and 900 others to another state.

Now, if there are 1300 retirees, out of which 7% (decrease by 3 percentage points) , ie. 91 have moved to Florida and 1201 to rest of the US.

From 900 to 1201 we see a significant increase in the retirees moving to rest of the US. ( Will significant increase mean only doubling or more than that?) At the same time, Florida has lesser number of retirees than it has before.

So, How can option D weaken the statement?

Pls help me with the right option.
_________________

IF U HAVE TO DO IT, DO IT.

I completely agree. The only logical statement weakening the argument is D.

Though I am late in my explanation, I will nevertheless answer.

A says " Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state" Which implies that out of total number of people who retire and move to another state , Florida has larger share. This in no way is clear what is the proportion of those retirees coming to Florida. hence A is not sufficient. I think this is one of the greater traps.
D is the correct answer. Because if the total number of retirees has increased significantly, then the 3% figure does not mean the number of retirees in Florida is reduced and hence there is no loss to Local businesses. Hence D weakens the statement properly.

Thanks.

Though the OG problem deals with % it's not in the same league as the problem being discussed in this thread - The percentage trap is applicable where fluctuations in percentages are used as a decoy to hide real facts - for ex while the percentage of retirees to florida dropped the ABSOLUTE NUMBER of retirees actually went up; eventually, so long as the absolute number keeps increasing - the business profitability would not take a hit.

Returning to the OG example - the percentages are used to show that radar equipped cars though a minority vis-a-vis non-radar equipped cars constitute a significantly higher percentage of ticketed cars - this makes the author conclude that drivers of radar equipped cars are likely to exceed the speed limit regularly... how can this be concluded UNLESS we assume that those who are ticketed once are more likely to be ticketed again - which is stated in B and hence the correct answer.

Thanks for clarifying, dwivedy!

This is really a good post giving good insight into CR strategies...

Hi, I have recently joined. Hope this will help some:

Answer choice "C" merely changes the premises to the conclusion, the evidence the conclusion is based on. It is complete contradiction, which is wrong in its nature.

Answer choice "A" - it is great that Florida attracts more retired people than any other state does. But suppose that during the last ten years less people have retired at all in the whole country or simply less of the retired have moved anywhere. It means that retired people in Florida despite that it attracts those more than any other state does will be less now... and local companies indeed will be effected.

Situation : # of retirees moving into Florida has been decreased in the last 10 years and this might potentially have -ve impact on local business's economy.

A. Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.
>>> We have no idea about Florida's comparison to other States. So, drop this !
B. The number of people who move out of Florida to accept employment in other states has increased over the past ten years.
>>> This agrees with the argument (people moving out of jobs in Florida in the past 10 yrs). So, drop this !
C. There are far more local businesses in Florida that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees.
>> If this is true, decreasing # of retirees settling in Florida will not impact the economy of local businesses. So, this might weaken the argument => Answer !
D. The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past ten years.
>> This contradicts the fact mentioned in the statement. Rather total # of people who retired and moved to another state HAS DECREASED.

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.
>> No idea or data about # of retired migrants of last year and its comparison to 10 years back. Drop this !