Last visit was: 19 Jun 2024, 12:49 It is currently 19 Jun 2024, 12:49
Toolkit
GMAT Club Daily Prep
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

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.

# In the United States of the people who moved from one state to another

SORT BY:
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
VP
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Posts: 1361
Own Kudos [?]: 852 [0]
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
Director
Joined: 05 Jul 2020
Posts: 586
Own Kudos [?]: 303 [0]
Given Kudos: 151
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
WE:Accounting (Accounting)
Manager
Joined: 29 Sep 2018
Posts: 73
Own Kudos [?]: 61 [0]
Given Kudos: 348
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38 (Online)
GPA: 3.5
Intern
Joined: 27 Jul 2021
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Re: In the United States of the people who moved from one state to another [#permalink]
Hi

I’m wondering why D is not considered to “ weaken” the argument.

The argument: decrease in percentage of ppl retired to F. ——> negative Econ impact

But answer D tells us that this negative impact might come from ppl who leave F.
Answer D provides another reason for the economic decline.
This reason weaken the stance of decreased percentage as being the sole cause of economic decline .....
Intern
Joined: 08 Dec 2021
Posts: 21
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 5
Re: In the United States of the people who moved from one state to another [#permalink]
KarishmaB GMATNinja

I understand why option C is correct, but what about option D?
The argument says, 'THESE DECLINES'(retirees moving to Florida) have caused the economy to fall in Florida. But option D states an alternate reason for the decline, that the retirees moving from Florida has decreased more last year so that's why the economy has fallen.
Doesn't it weaken the argument?

Let me know if I'm missing something.
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14968
Own Kudos [?]: 66054 [1]
Given Kudos: 435
Location: Pune, India
Re: In the United States of the people who moved from one state to another [#permalink]
1
Kudos
muralis18 wrote:
KarishmaB GMATNinja

I understand why option C is correct, but what about option D?
The argument says, 'THESE DECLINES'(retirees moving to Florida) have caused the economy to fall in Florida. But option D states an alternate reason for the decline, that the retirees moving from Florida has decreased more last year so that's why the economy has fallen.
Doesn't it weaken the argument?

Let me know if I'm missing something.

This would make sense if we were given that the economy has declined and the conclusion were that it has declined because 3% fewer people moved to Florida.
The conclusion is that 3% fewer people moving to Florida will cause a decline in the economy (in the future). Option (C) tells us that even if 3% fewer people moved to Florida, in absolute terms, still more people are coming in and hence it weakens our conclusion that the economy will decline.

Option (D) says that more people are moving out of Florida. If anything, this will worsen the decline in the economy. It is not against our conclusion. But note that, strictly speaking, it is out of scope. Our conclusion talks about the impact of decline in the % of people coming in.
Whether the decline will be made up in other ways or exacerbated by other factors is out of scope for us.
Intern
Joined: 09 May 2022
Posts: 6
Own Kudos [?]: [0]
Given Kudos: 3
Re: In the United States of the people who moved from one state to another [#permalink]
(D) 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.

Doesn't this provide an alternative cause for the effect mentioned in the passage?
Intern
Joined: 26 Sep 2023
Posts: 3
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 40
Re: In the United States of the people who moved from one state to another [#permalink]
sagarsabnis wrote:
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 three percentage points over the past ten years. Since many local businesses in Florida cater to retirees, these declines are likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses and therefore on the economy of Florida.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument given?

(A) People who moved from one state to another when they retired moved a greater distance, on average, last year than such people did ten years ago.

(B) People were more likely to retire to North Carolina from another state last year than people were ten years ago.

(C) The number of people who moved from one state to another when they retired has increased significantly over the past ten years.

(D) 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.

(E) Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.

­I did choose C as the answer and I understand the rationale behind C.
But wanted to get clarification on Why D is wrong.
As per D -  The number of people who left Florida was greater last year than it was ten years ago. So I thought this weaknes the argument since it proviedes another reason for negative economic effect in Florida.
Since more people are leaving Florida, the reduced percentage might not be the only reason for negative economic effect.