Hi
axeofflane, while I may not be as sharp as Marty, I will try my best to expose flaws in your reasoning from a 3rd person point of view.
The biggest flaw in your reasoning is that
you added your own assumptions in the option. Choice (A) only says retirees moved longer distances on average. It never says this helped Florida specifically, increased retirees to Florida, or offset the percentage decline. Your story could weaken the argument but only after applying 1-2 extra assumptions. However,
GMAT weakener answers must weaken the argument directly. A need to support a weakener answer choice with 1-2 extra assumptions is a red flag in weaken/ strengthen answer choices.Additionally, Choice (C) directly attacks the logical gap in argument without any drama: that a lower percentage means fewer retirees came to Florida.
axeofflane
I chose A trying to be oversmart. C seemed painfully obvious, so i though that this answer may be wrong because people who move out of florida would have significantly increased as well.
A on the other hand could mean the radius of people migrating have increased. So people from New york can now shift to florida when previously they wouldnt have, hence the number of people increase because the radius increased.
Can someone explain whats the most fatal flaw in my reasoning?
MartyMurray