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

Clearly 'C' is irrelevant.

'D' is tricky and looks attractive but question remains what if most of the people who retires are from Florida itself? Also there is one better option available as explained below.

Answer 'A' most logically weakens the statement by saying that Florida is still a great destination for retiree. There is drop in terms of sheer numbers & percentage as well (of inflow) in last ten years, however there is no negative inflow but highest inflow in numbers than any other state. This inflow will provide supoprt to local businesses in florida than negatively affect those local businesses.

Hey All,

While plenty of people have the right idea on this one, a lot of people still sound confused. Let's walk through this step by step, in order to see why C is in fact the correct answer.

Conclusion: Declines will have a negative economic effect on business
Premise: Of retirees who move states, percentage retiring to Florida down 3% over last ten years
Assumption: The percent down means there are fewer people in Florida (it's also worth noting that the answer COULD relate to how many people FROM Florida are staying there when they retire)

(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.
Problem: The distance that people travel will not affect how many people retire to Florida. Every state is some distance away from every other state. Florida is not inherently "further away" then other states, even though it's in the corner of the country. A dangerous trap, because if you see Florida as "remote", it may sound like more people might move there.

(B) People were more likely to retire to North Carolina from another state last year than people were
ten years ago.
Problem: This would strengthen the argument, if anything, because now more people are going to NC. Remember, we want to WEAKEN the argument that business in Florida will suffer.

(C) The number of people who moved from one state to another when they retired has increased significantly
over the past ten years.
Answer: Now we have way more people ("increased significantly") moving from one state to another in the past ten years. This means that even if the overall percentage is down 3%, the actual # of people moving to Florida has likely increased.

(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.
Problem: This answer seemed very popular on the boards here, but this actually strengthens the argument again. We want businesses in Florida NOT to suffer. If more people are leaving Florida now than before, that means businesses will have EVEN FEWER customers.

(E) Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other
state.
Problem: This doesn't change the fact that the percentage is down 3%, which we need to address in the correct answer choice.

Hope that helps!

I have just started out with my CR preparation and hence my reasoning might be a little rusty. Anyway here is what I think.

The question stem important conclusion is -- [highlight]this decline is likely to have a noticeable negative economic effect on these (which cater to retired ppl) businesses.[/highlight]

Here are the answer choices.

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

This is a relative comparison of Florida with other states. Not relevant.

B) The number of people who move out of Florida to accept employment in other states has increased over the past ten years.

This talks about people moving out of Florida for employment and does not shed light on the retired people. Not relevant.

C) There are more local businesses in Florida that cater to tourists than there are local busineeses that cater to retirees.

At first glance this seemed to be a candidate but later found that this sentence talks about the difference between the different business and such a difference might have existed even before the stated premise -- (the percentage who retired to Florida has decreased by three percentage points over the past ten years). Also this choice supports the argument in the question. Hence this choice is ruled out.

D) The total number of people who retired and move to another state fro their retirement has increased significantly over the past ten years.

This choice talks about the increase in the total number of people who have moved to another state. This is exactly different to the conclusion/argument proposed in the question. Hence this is a very strong candidate.

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.

This choice supports the argument proposed in the question. Hence ruled out.

Answer is D.

(A) Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.INCORRECT - information doesn't say anything about retirees, hence irrelevant
(B) The number of people who move out of Florida to accept employment in other states has increased over the past ten years. INCORRECT - these are non retirees, hence doesn't help address affect on businesses that cater to retirees
(C) There are far more local businesses in Florida that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees.INCORRECT - this is an irrelevant comparison, how does this tell us anything about what caused the decline
(D) The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past ten years. - CORRECT - breaking down the causality. this could be the alternate cause to the the same effect. i.e. Say in 2001, out of 100 total retirees, 50 retired to florida (50%). Today in 2011, out of 200 total retires, 94 retired to florida (47% - 3% ppt less than before). This is an increase. Hence, authors argument fails miserably.
(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. - INCORRECT - sort of strengthens the argument

Premise: Retirees will move to another state (after they stop working)

Premise 2: The percentage of Florida retirees decrease 3 % during past 10 years

Premise 3: Almost businesses in Florida are serving retirees

Conclusion: This decline (decrease 3%) is likely to have a noticeable negative economic effect on these businesses.

This argument assumes the retirees who originated in Florida will work for cater to retirees.

This assumption is contradict with the premise 1. The choice D states that

"The total number of people who retired and move to another state fro their retirement has increased significantly over the past ten years."

This statement means that many retirees in other states will move to Florida to use the service in retirees caters. This number will be larger than the number decrease from the 3% decrease in retirees in Florida. (This number is compatible with premise 1 subtract to the number in the premise 2) that will suite with premise 3 ==> conclusion that the business in Florida will get benefits rather than negative effects

Still did not get how answer D is correct.
D) The total number of people who retired and move to another state fro their retirement has increased significantly over the past ten years.


How does this prevent the decline and therby the negative economic impact?

This question belongs to NUMBER & STATISTIC, you should notice that the figure in the argument is only percentage (decline 3%). However, in choice D, it stated that the overall amount of target market (retirees) increase SIGNIFICANTLY. Therefore, declining 3% does not mean that reduce in the amount of target market. So, the businesses cater to retirees will not be affected adversely.

Hope my explanation clarifies your mind :D

I understand what you mean, but answer choice D says that "total number of people who retired and moved to another state…" but it does´t say "in Florida" that it´s the scope of the question. We are talking about local business in Florida. So, It might be possible that the total number of retirees had increased but maybe they had moved to California, so local business in Florida would be in danger.

The argument is looking at a decrease the proportion of interstate retirees who are moving to Florida, and interpreting this as something that is going to hurt Florida's businesses. the only reasonable way to process this argument is to realize that the author is confusing a percentage/proportion decrease with an absolute decrease (i.e., decrease in the actual number of retirees moving into the state), since a decrease in that actual number is the only thing that would reasonably lead to bad times for these businesses.

Therefore:
Anything that separates the percentage/proportion from the actual number will be a weakener.
A. Distance is irrelevant.

B. We are concerned specifically with the number of retirees moving to Florida.

C. CORRECT
Assume that last year 1000 people retired and moved to another state. Out of these 1000 people, 100 of them move to Florida. That means, 10% of the people moved to Florida. This year, the % of the people moved to Florida decreased by 3%. That means, only 7% of the total people moved to Florida. Now, choice D states that the total number of people who retired and moved to other states increased significantly. Let us assume that a total of 10,000 people moved this year (where as it was 1000 people last year). Now, 7% of 10,000 = 700 is the number of people who moved to Florida. Even though the % decreased, the actual number of people moved to Florida increased. This would weaken the argument.

D. We are not bothered about all kinds of people. We are bothered only about retirees.

E. We are supposed to compare the two numbers that went to Florida … if there is a 3 percent point drop in this number, then whether Florida attracts the largest number among all states or the lowest number among all states … the conclusion is unaffected.

The answer is straightforward D.


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) Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.
WRONG:- Strengthen the argument.

(B) The number of people who move out of Florida to accept employment in other states has increased over the past ten years.
WRONG:- Clever trap. The argument is about retiree. Any other subset of people (employed, semi-employed, etc etc) is out of scope

(C) There are far more local businesses in Florida that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees.
WRONG:- OUT OF SCOPE. There can be a freaking superman living in Florida for all we care. Our argument is concerned only with businesses that deals with retiree. The ratio is businesses that cater to tourist to the businesses that caters to retiree is irrelevant. Even if there is only one shop that caters to retiree, we have to think about how the decrease in retiree population will affect it. Since this Option talks nothing about whats happening to retiree .. it is out of scope.

(D) 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.

(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.
WRONG:- this is a strengthener

It is option D.

Conclusion : this decline is likely to have a noticeable negative economic effect on these businesses.
prem1 : 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
prem2 : many local businesses in Florida cater to retirees

option D tells us that the total number of retirees who move to other states has increased.This statements totally weakens the conclusion as it could be that even the percentage of retirees moving to Florida decreases,the actual number of people is increase,i.e. previous : 6% of 100;now : 3% of 300.

i need help with this question.So here the only two contenders are B and D, And the argument says because the number of people who move to Florida after their retirement there is going to be a negative economic effect. So there are two ways in which you can weaken an argument. 1) you can give reason to say that this decrease will not happen (2) you can give alternate reason that can have a same effect. So here option B cannot be the answer because it just speaks about the business that cater to the tourists but that doesn't mean that it would compensate for the negative effects caused from the retirees. So option B is incorrect.

Can someone please let me know if my reasoning is correct??

longhaul123, I believe you are talking about choice (C), not choice (B), right? If so, then your reasoning looks good! The businesses that cater to tourists might not see a change, but we need to address the potential negative economic effect caused by the decrease in percentage of retirees.

Only choice (D) addresses this effect. If the total number of retirees has increased, then a drop in the percentage might not result in a significant drop in the number of retirees who move to Florida.

Hello Tommy,

Now when you've defended the choice C very well, how would you eliminate the new option D? (I can see that the option D you eliminated does not exist anymore)

Regards,

Pre-thinking - The conclusion discusses the "decline," and the premise discusses the Percentages. Classic "flawed statistics" structure. The assumption is that the number of people declines with the three percent decline.


(A) Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state. - This is a strengthener. If it attracts more people than any other state - it means the 3 percent decline will have an impact.

(B) The number of people who move out of Florida to accept employment in other states has increased over the past ten years. - People seeking employment is out of scope.

(C) There are far more local businesses in Florida that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees. - out of scope.

(D) The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past ten years. - If the overall number has increased, then the number (3 percent less) can be a substantially bigger number. ok

(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. Out of scope as no effect on the 3 percent decrease. Argumnet still valid.

See here I pick the conclusion 1) Decline is likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses.

And another thing i obeserve it is telling that its decline in population in 10 years so i just need to weaken it
so option D is clearly saying its counter that population is increasing so choose D