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:
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. _________________
A is wrong because they are talking Florida has more number of people coming in than any other state.. this matter is irrelevant since we are talking about the percentage drop in the number of people coming to florida. Note, you can still have a percentage drop in population coming into florida and still have a greater number of people coming into Florida than any other state. So A does not weaken the argument as much as D.
I completely agree. The only logical statement weakening the argument is D.
I agree w/ D. It indeed says that the total number of people who move to other states when they retire is larger, so even if from a % point of view, such number has decreased for Florida, in absolute numbers it has increased.
Like Prema, I thought (A) is the right answer, but see (D) is the best one.
However, can somebody help me to better understand why A is not correct? Is A a wrong anser, or just not better than (D)?
I see some explanation adding "over past ten years", but don't really find a reason to justify A is not correct. Thank you.
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.
There is another percentage-based CR from OG 11 that has me confused. It is the sample question # 81 on page 491 of OG 11. The explanation provided is not quite clear and convincing to me.
Does anyone care to discuss this question?
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.
If A says something like below, it could seriously weaken the argument. Otherwise, the negative effect may still be there...
A. Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state over past ten years.
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.
Re: Useful Tips for CR: [#permalink]
22 Dec 2007, 09:49
This thread will be used to collect tips and tricks for CR. Please feel free to discuss and add.
I would like to add Percentage Trap to this llist. It can be best explained with this example:
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 3 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.
Anand's explaination: Guys this is a beauty. Please hammer this into your head. This is a standard percentage trap. Let me elaborate.
Assume that last year 1000 people in the US moved out of state to retire. Of this say 10% moved to florida = 100 people So 90% moved to states other than florida right?
This year 20000 people moved to other state to retire Of this say 8% moved to florida = 160 people. So 92% moved to states other than florida right?
Though the %of people moving to florida has decreased (because %of people moving to otherstates has increased) number of people moving to florida has infact increased from 100 to 160. So the local businesses are gonna do great.
The bold portion is what (D) says and thus weakens the argument more seriously than (C).
D. Also notice that C does not weaken the argument... it actually shifts the arguments focus just a bit.
C doesnt explain why "Since many local businesses in Florida cater to retirees" these local businesses that cater to retires will not suffer. Just b/c other businesses wont doesnt mean that these businesses wont as well. C warps the argument. If you saw this you could still use the numbers approach, which is still helpful, or successfully POE to D.
Re: Useful Tips for CR: [#permalink]
09 Jun 2008, 03:25
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 !
Re: Useful Tips for CR:
09 Jun 2008, 03:25