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

Question

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.

KyleWiddison · Accepted Answer

In this "weakening" question, you need to be able to understand the structure of the argument and spot the answer that would best ATTACK a key assumption. The argument states that the PERCENTAGE (you should pay very close attention to how the GMAT uses numbers in CR - raw numbers, percentages, comparitive amounts, etc.) of retirees moving to Florida is going down. The conclusion is that the decreasing percentage will negatively impact the Florida businesses/economy. Be on the lookout for something that will address the number of retireees...

A - Completely out of scope
B - Completely out of scope
C - The answer correctly states that the NUMBER of retirees has increased SIGNIFICANTLY, so a small reduction in percentage would still likely involve an increase in the raw number of retirees making it to Floriday. This strongly weakens the conclusion that businesses will be impacted by the decline in percentage.
D- This would strengthen the argument (watch out for wrong direction!)
E - Addresses raw numbers, but we need a comparison between retirees coming to Florida now vs. the past, not a comparison of Florida v. other states

KW

GMATNinja · Answer

The conclusion is that "these declines   are likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses and therefore on the economy of Florida." How does the author arrive at this conclusion?

In the United States, some people move from one state to another when they retire. For example, a person who lives in the state of Minnesota might retire and move to Florida (where it's warmer!). 
 Of those people who moved when they retired, "the  percentage  (not the total number) who retired to Florida has decreased by three percentage points over the past ten years." - For example, if 23% of those people retired to Florida ten years ago, then only 20% retired to Florida this year. 
 "Many local businesses in Florida cater to retirees." - If Florida is gradually becoming a less popular state for retirement, that could be bad those local businesses and, therefore, for Florida's economy.

We know that the PERCENTAGE has decreased, but has the total NUMBER of people retiring to Florida also decreased? If not, then the argument falls apart.

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

The distance these people moved does not impact the argument at all. Has the number of people retiring to Florida decreased? (A) is irrelevant, so eliminate this one.

The percentage retiring to North Carolina has increased. So what? We already know that the percentage retiring to Florida has decreased. We still don't know whether the total  number  of people retiring to Florida has decreased. (B) does not weaken the argument, so eliminate (B).

Ah ha! We are told that the  percentage  has decreased. Percentage of what? Of the number of people who move from one state to another when they retire. If the size of that group has increased significantly over the past ten years, then the  total number  of people retiring to Florida may have actually increased, even though the  percentage  slightly decreased.

If (C) is true, then the argument falls apart. Keep this one.

This actually helps the author's argument. A smaller percentage is retiring to Florida AND more people are  leaving  Florida when they retire! This is probably bad news for local businesses. (D) strengthens the argument, so eliminate this one.

(E) tells us that Florida is #1. But maybe it was also #1 ten years ago. At that time, the second-most-popular state may have trailed Florida by a huge margin. Maybe now that margin is pretty small.

So even if (E) is true, the total number of people retiring to Florida may have decreased over the past ten years. (E) does not necessarily weaken the argument, so eliminate this one.

(C) is the best answer.

KarishmaB · Answer

Actually, C doesn't stink. 
Consider the stimulus again:
"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."

So ten years back, let's say, 100 people moved from one to another state. Let's also assume 30 of those 100 moved to Florida. In US, 30% of people who were moving after retirement, moved to Florida.

It has gone down to 27%.

What option C says is: "The number of people who moved from one state to another when they retired has increased significantly
over the past ten years"

The total number of people who are moving has increased significantly.
So now, perhaps 200 people move from one state to another as compared to 100 of ten years back. Then 27% would be 54, still much greater than 30.
So there may not have been any negative effect, in fact there might have been a positive effect because more people are moving to Florida. Therefore, it weakens the conclusion.

chetan2u · Answer

ans C..
 the argument tells us that % has gone down by 3.... but what if the no of people migrating has incr substantially.. in that case the shortage by decr of 3% is made up by overall no incr

perseverance · Answer

I've come across this question before and think I got it right by a little POE. See my explanations below.

mailnavin1 · Answer

The stimulus states "these declines are likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses and therefore on the economy of Florida."

let the number move a higher than the last year, but considerably it is a number less than would have actually moved so there could still be a negative effect.

KarishmaB · Answer

Absolutely mailnavin1, there could still be a negative effect. Since (C) says 'increased significantly'. But we do not know by how much. But the question is "which of the following weakens the argument?", not "which of the following make it false?".. Since option (C) creates a possibility that the argument might become invalid, it weakens the argument considerably. 
I hope it makes more sense now.

plumber250 · Answer

Hi Lauhub,

Let me see if I can explain.

Overall the % of people who choose, when moving state, to retire in Florida has gone down a little bit.

C then says, the total number of people who move state when retiring has gone up SIGNIFICANTLY.

So if LOTS more people are moving to retire in general. Even if a slightly (3%) smaller percentage are moving to Florida, overall there will still be more people than before moving to Florida.

In general this is an interesting question, because it has some numbers, yet is Verbal. Overall advice is don't bring your Quant logic (about percentages vs real numbers) into Verbal.

Cheers,

James

bhamini1 · Answer

Hi Karishma,
Can you elaborate on why E should be eliminated.
I basically want to be sure that the reason for eliminating this choice is correct at my end.
Is it correct to think that how Florida attracts retirees compared to other states does not have an impact on weakening the conclusion whereas as long as the total number of people who have retired and moved to Florida is greater than the 3% of the people who have moved out of Florida.

KarishmaB · Answer

Yes, you are right. Whether Florida is the state that gets the most number of people or second most number of people etc is immaterial. 
As long as it retains (or increases) the number of people settling there after retirement, its economy will not be affected. We know that in percentage terms, number of people retiring to Florida has decreased but in absolute terms, the number of people retiring there could actually have stayed same or even increased. If more people are retiring now, a smaller percentage could still lead to more actual number (as shown in my post above). The comparison of number of people shifting to Florida now is only with the number of people who shifted to Florida ten years back. Number of people shifting to any other state has nothing to do with this argument.

mdabra · Answer

Let's take an example, let suppose initially 100% people retired to Florida of total 100 retired in US, so how many people came to Florida is 100, now this year, the percentage decreased to 97% but according to  OPTION C  the number of people retired in US have increased, let's say to 200. So 194 people arrived in Florida, instead of 100. And that will increase the business! So will weaken the argument. Hope you liked the explanation. #Kudos

LogicGuru1 · Answer

The answer is straightforward C.

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, 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) 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.
 WRONG:- Irrelevant. We are concerned with number of people moving to florida. Distance has nothing to do with the argument.

(B) People were more likely to retire to North Carolina from another state last year than people were ten years ago.
 WRONG:- Clever trap. "Likely to retire" is not equal to "definitely retired" ... I am likely to be a movie star does not translate to I am a movie star. Likely introduces a concept of uncertainty and thus cannot be taken as a proper answer.

(C)The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past ten years.
CORRECT:- Earlier in US there were 1000 people who moved from one state of another after retirement. Out of these 50 % came to florida (meaning 500 people came to florida) Now there were 10,000 people move from one state to another and only 10 % comes to florida (meaning 10 % of 10,000=1000 people) that came to florida.
As you can see the % is decreasing but the actual number has gone up (from 500 people to 1000 people ; there is an increase of 500). This weaken the argument. Infant it kills and buries the argument 6 feet deep in the ground.
 
(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.
 WRONG:- At best This tells one side of a story. It tells us nothing about the number of people coming to florida. At worst this option is just out of scope because our argument is concerned with retired people coming to florida and not about people leaving florida. 
 
(E) Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state 
 WRONG:- Reverse answer. This strengthen the argument

KarishmaB · Answer

Premises:
- 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. 
- many local businesses in Florida cater to retirees,

Conclusion: these declines are likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect

Note here what the question says: Of the people moving on retiring, the %age who retired to Florida has decreased. Note that the actual number of people moving to Florida might actually have increased (in case more people have been retiring over the past ten years)
Say 100 people retired in a previous year and 50% i.e. 50 moved to Florida.
Say this year 200 people retired and 47% i.e. 94 moved to Florida
Many more moved to Florida.

(C) The number of people who moved from one state to another when they retired has increased signifi cantly
over the past ten years.
We are given that actual number of people moving has increased substantially. So this is much like the case discussed above.

Answer (C)

BrentGMATPrepNow · Answer

This is a classic NUMBER vs PROPORTION argument. The passage seems to suggest that the NUMBER of retired people moving to Florida has decreased (which will hurt local businesses). However, this is NOT what the passage actually says. It says that the PROPORTION of retired people who move to Florida has decreased.

This is much different. Here's an illustrative example:

In 2007, there was a total of 100 retired people who moved to a different state. Of those 100 people, 20 moved to Florida. In other words, 20% PERCENT of the moves were to Florida. 
 
In 2017, there was a total of 100,000 retired people who moved to a different state. Of those 100,000 people, 10,000 moved to Florida. In other words, 10% of the moves were to Florida.

So, the PERCENTAGE of retired people moving to Florida has decreased from 20% to 10%. However the NUMBER of retired people moving to Florida has INcreased.

Answer choice C (the correct answer) says that the NUMBER of retired people moving to a different state has increased significantly over the past ten years. So, the 3% difference in the PERCENTAGE is offset by the increase in total volume.

Aside: answer choice E doesn't weaken the conclusion that Florida's economy will be harmed by the 3% decrease.

Cheers,
Brent

aragonn · Answer

Premise:  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. local businesses in Florida cater to retirees

Conclusion:  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? ---- weaken the given conclusion.

Hint/pre-think - As soon as you see number or percentage, look for answers that are playing with this. but lets deep dive into the situation.
let just assume 10 yrs back 100 ppl moved from one state to another. out of which 10% (10) moved to Florida. while last yrs. 1000 moved but only 7%(70) to Florida. keeping this in mind lets attempt the choices.

(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. --- Distance is not affecting anything.

(B) People were more likely to retire to North Carolina from another state last year than people were ten years ago. ---- Fine, let just say NC is at top. so what about economy of florida.

(C) The number of people who moved from one state to another when they retired has increased significantly over the past ten years.  ---  And this is the one we are looking for. number increased from 100 to 1000 and effects are quiet clear. this should be the answer.even if % decreased, if more number of ppl are shifting to florida then its good for florida's economy.

(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.--- weakener.

(E) Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state. ---- let just say 100yrs before this number was 100 and now it is 90 but that 90 is highest among all states.

Bakshi · Answer

Hi souvik101990

Just wanted to confirm that these qotds questions are not from gmat prep test pack right? cause i have been solving most of these to practice CR and SC.

GMATNinja · Answer

Heh heh -- this has been very much a topic of discussion among the GMAT Club crew. Some of the QOTDs are from the GMATPrep resources (default test, exam pack, and question pack), unfortunately. All of them are tagged though, so as long as you avoid the QOTDs with GMATPrep tags on them, you'll be fine. Most of the CRs are from the OGs or GMAT Club tests, but there's a decent number of SC questions from the GMATPrep resources -- that would be my fault. Bad Ninja.

NikhilJose · Answer

My gripe with C is that we are not talking about Florida per se. While it may be true that people moving from state to state after retirement have increased, are we correct in assuming that Florida is one of those states??

Based on this line of reasoning, I chose E because it mentions that the raw number of people specifically moving to Florida may be higher.

Can someone point my error in logic here?

Thanks
Nik

celan · Answer

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.

P : % who retired and went to Florida has decreased by 3% over the past 10 years
P : Many local businesses in Florida cater to retirees
C : declines are likely to have a negative economic effect

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.
-> Irrelevant. We do not need to know the distance on average people moved.

(B) People were more likely to retire to North Carolina from another state last year than people were ten years ago.
-> We are talking about Florida, not North Carolina. Moreover, this option can explain the reason why more than 3% declined in Florida.

(C) The number of people who moved from one state to another when they retired has increased significantly over the past ten years.
-> Correct, this option is implicitly saying that although % has decreased, the total number who move to Florida may not have decreased.

(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.
-> This option only degenerates the situation in Florida.

(E) Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.
-> Irrelevant. Attracting more than other states might be important. However, what Flordia is focusing on is that the % has decreased more than 3% over ten years.

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

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

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

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards