Of the people who moved from one state to another when they retired

Question

Of the people who moved from one state to another when they retired, the proportion who retired to SunState has decreased by 10 percent over the past five years. Since many local businesses in SunState 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) SunState attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.

(B) There are far more local businesses in SunState that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees.

(C) The number of retirees who have moved out of SunState to accept re-employment in other states has increased over the past five years.

(D) SunState has lower property taxes than any other state, making the state a magnet for retirees.

(E) The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past five years.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

This argument concludes that a decline in the percentage of retirees who relocate to SunState will have a negative impact on businesses there that cater to retirees. However, a decline in this percentage would only have a negative impact on businesses if it indicated a decrease in the actual number of retirees. If the actual number of retirees is steady or increasing, then a decrease in the percentage wouldn't matter. As we are looking for a statement that weakens the argument, we should look for an answer choice that somehow mitigates the effect of this percentage decrease.

(A) The fact that SunState attracts more retirees than any other state does not address the impact of the declining proportion of retirees moving to SunState.

(B) The existence of other businesses in SunState that do not cater to retirees is not relevant.

(C) Any increase in departure of retirees from SunState to accept re-employment would further damage businesses that serve retirees. However, the argument explicitly discusses the impact of the declining percentage of retirees relocating to SunState, and no other factors, making this answer choice irrelevant. In any case, this answer choice suggests that such businesses will indeed lose business, which would strengthen the conclusion, not weaken it.

(D) Low property taxes provide one reason why SunState is an appealing destination for retirees, but this is not relevant in determining the economic impact of the smaller proportion of retirees moving to SunState overall.

(E) CORRECT.  If the total number of retirees that relocated to other states increased significantly, a 10 percent reduction in the proportion of retirees that moved to SunState may not result in a reduction in the actual number of people who moved to SunState. This choice weakens the contention that businesses that cater to retirees in SunState will suffer from a drop-off resulting from the percentage decrease.

IanStewart · Answer

This is testing a concept common in the Quant section of the GMAT- the difference between ratios and absolute quantities. We know that there has been a slight decline in the  percentage  of people retiring to SunState. That does not mean there has been a decline in the  number  of people retiring to SunState. If more people are retiring to other states than ever before, it remains possible that the number of retirees to SunState has increased, even if the percentage of the total has declined slightly.  E  tells us precisely this.

B is tempting here, since it suggests that the economic effect might not be "noticeably negative". Still, the question tells us that "many local businesses cater to retirees", which suggests that these businesses are important to the local economy. It remains possible, even assuming B to be true, that tourism-related businesses make up half the local economy, and retirement-related businesses make up a quarter of the local economy.

goalsnr · Answer

Tot number of retiress = T
number of retirees moving to sunsstate = x
% of retirees moving to sunstate p = (x/T)*100
p decreases , if T increases ,x is constant
p decreases , if x decreases , T is constant
p deceases , if T increases , X increases (but the increase is not very high compared to T)

in 20007, T =100,x =20 , p= 20 %
in 2008, t =1000, , p = 10 %

to calculate x in 2008 : x = (1000*10)/100 = 100

The percentage of people moving is decreased but the actual number of people (x) moving has increased.

E

ritula · Answer

This is a perfect example of percentage trap. The ans shld b E. 
Suppose earlier no of ppl who migrated was 100 and % who retired to suncity was 10%. then their no is 10. But if the total no of ppl increased say to 1000 but % migrated to suncity decreased to 5%. so no of ppl retiring 2 suncity is 50 which is definitely more than earlier. I hope it is clear now

mariyea · Answer

Hello ajit,

It would be good if you had a good grasp of CR as a whole and I also believe that the Powerscore CR would definitely help you in that area. 
After that just practicing would help improve your score. Try to find some LSAT exams with which to practice, it has difficult questions compared to those the GMAT has. So, yup I think that would help you.

Let's come to the q: The passage says "Of the people who moved from one state to another when they retired, the proportion who retired to SunState has decreased by 10 percent over the past five years."
Then it concludes the argument by saying, "Since many local businesses in SunState cater to retirees, this decline is likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses."

The author assumes that the local businesses will suffer because there aren't that many retirees coming into Sunstate. What would weaken (or cause someone to doubt the conclusion) the argument is that the local businesses would not suffer a negative economic effect.

How do we show this? By showing that there is not that much of a significant change in the amount of retirees coming into the state.
The passage says that the number of retirees coming into the state has decreased by 10% it could mean that the original number is 100,000 (bringing the current number to 99,000) that's a significant change. Now what if the original number of retirees decreased from 100 retirees (now the number of retirees would become 90 - a decline of 10%).
 
E is correct because it says that the total number of retirees that moved to another state increased instead of decreased - so that would mean taht the percentage does not exactly represent a significant decrease, therefore the local businesses would not suffer a negative economic effect.

IMHO

HTH

Mari

getgyan · Answer

I answered this question wrongly. In spite of that fact, I am posting my flawed solving process for others to see.
+1 B

Premise 1 - Of the people who moved from one state to another when they retired, the proportion who retired to SunState has decreased by 10 percent over the past five years
Premise 2 - Since many local businesses in SunState cater to retirees

Conclusion - this decline is likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses

Any option which weakens the conclusion or weakens the premise on which the conclusion is based is our answer

A) SunState attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state. (This strengthens the argument, eliminate)
B) There are far more local businesses in SunState that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees. (This options weakens the premise on which our conclusion is based and is thus our answer )
C) The number of retirees who have moved out of SunState to accept re-employment in other states has increased over the past five years. (This strengthens the argument, eliminate)
D) SunState has lower property taxes than any other state, making the state a magnet for retirees. (Irrelevant)
E) The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past five years. (Although this number has increased they have not moved to SunState, eliminate)

:-D

vmdce129907 · Answer

+1 E

Of the people who moved from one state to another when they retired, the proportion who retired to SunState has
decreased by 10 percent over the past five years.

Assume Required retirees in Sunstate to cater various businesses = 125

1st scenario :- Assume that 500 retirees moved from one state to another , 25 % moved to Sunstate - 125 retirees
2nd scenario :- As per 'E' if the total number of retirees who moved from one state to another are exceptionally high , lets say - 2000 , only 15% of 2000 
 i.e 300 (much higher than the required total retirees to cater businesses) moved to Sunstate

Press + 1 Kudos if you like my explanation

MarkSullivan · Answer

Thanks for posting this – I actually think looking at common mistakes made on CR is a more useful way to learn than just reading correct solutions.

Let me try to explain exactly why this logic for (B) isn't quite correct.

One general point: we're not allowed to question premises on CR. This is a common technique used in everyday arguments (claiming your opponent has his facts wrong), but the GMAT is more interested in the internal logic of arguments. The only piece open to attacks are the assumptions.

Second major point, answer (B) does NOT actually attack a premise. Pay attention to the  exact wording  of the conclusion, the "decline is likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on   these   businesses" The real issue is that the conclusion is talking about "these" businesses, by which we mean the ones that cater to retirees. So, the existence of tourism-related businesses is completely irrelevant!

So what is that assumption in the argument? Notice that the premises are all about  percentages , but the conclusion is about the actual  number  of retirees (the business will hurt because they have fewer customers). This is one of the GMAT's favorite kind of assumptions to test. Just because the percentage is down doesn't mean the actual number is down. Look for an answer choice that exploits this problem, and only (E) does the trick!

Cheers,
Mark

getgyan · Answer

Hi Mark Thanks for the explanation Is that so? Power Score CR, "Chapter 6 Weaken Questions - Page No. 113", clearly states that one of the classic ways to attack an argument is to attack the premises on which the conclusion rests. Any thoughts? :-D

manimgoindown · Answer

This is a tricky question and I'm still not sure between A and E. Why is A wrong and E right. For me E being right requires an unncessary assumption on the part of the test taker which would assume that the number of retirees also increases in the sunstate...

That is really really iffy business. Why can we make such an assumption?

That is really really iffy business. Why can we make such an assumption?

Vercules · Answer

Hi manimgoindowndown,

We have to select an answer choice that will weaken the conclusion that decline in the proportion of people retiring to SunState will cause a negative economic effect on the business serving retired people

Of the people who moved from one state to another when they retired, the proportion who retired to SunState has decreased by 10 percent over the past five years. Since many local businesses in SunState 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. SunState attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.

Suppose were true then this would mean that the number people retiring to SunState is greater than those do retire in other state. Greater number is good, but we are comparing the number " in SunState " this year vs last year. Even if SunState attracts more retires than other states, it has seen a 10% decrease and this will cause a decline in local businesses. To sump up, (A) makes a wrong comparison between " SunState and other states ", the correct answer should give some information about the number of retirees "" last years v/s this year "

E.The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past five years.

If the total number of people who retired and moved to another state has increased then this means that the number of people corresponding to the proportion will also increase

Lets user numbers for this choice:

Lets say, last year, the total number of people retiring and moving to other states is 1000 and 100 of these are retiring to SunState. Now the proportion would be  \frac{100}{1000}  \frac{*100}{1}  = 10%

This year this proportion has decreased by 10%, i.e. the new proportion has now become 9% (=10% decrease in the proportion). Now according to (E) the total number has increased. Lets say that the total number has increased from 1000 to 1500. Now 9% of 1500 is 135. This number is greater than the previous 100. The total number doesn't have to be 1500, but (E) in fact (among all the choices) gives us the strongest reason to weaken the conclusion, even slightly.

If we want to prove that the conclusion is true for sure, then we need to make an assumption that the increase in the total number of retirees should be such that it offsets the 10% decrease in the proportion. We just need an additional evidence that will weaken the conclusion, this evidence may or may not destroy the conclusion.

Hope this helps,

Vercules

ssriva2 · Answer

I used the same reasoning...I got the answer as B.
can someone explain why not B?

KarishmaB · Answer

Note that (B) does not attack the premises. The premises are always taken to be TRUE. In fact, (B) provides information that is irrelevant to the argument.

Premises:
- Of the retirees who moved from one state to another, the proportion who retired to SunState has decreased by 10 percent over the past 5 years. 
- Many local businesses in SunState cater to retirees.

Conclusion: The decline is likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses .

Our conclusion says that many businesses cater to retirees and a decrease in the proportion of retirees coming to SunState will affect these businesses.

B) There are far more local businesses in SunState that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees.

We don't care about businesses that cater to tourists and neither do we care about the proportion of businesses that cater to tourists vs proportion of businesses that cater to retirees. Our only concern is the economy of the businesses that actually cater to the retirees. Hence, this option is out of scope.

E) The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly
over the past five years.
This option tells us that the proportion of retirees coming to SunState might have reduced but many more retirees have started moving to other states so this means that in absolute numbers, the number of retirees coming to SunState might still be the same or even more. 
So previously, say of the 1000 new retirees every year, 100 used to move out and 10% of those used to move to SunState. So SunState used to get 10 retirees every year.
Now, of the 1000 new retirees every year, say 500 move out and 5% of those are moving to SunState. So SunState is getting 25 retirees. 
Hence, this option certainly weakens our argument that the decrease in proportion will affect the businesses catering to retirees.

Skywalker18 · Answer

Premise 1 -Of the people who moved from one state to another when they retired, the proportion who retired to SunState has decreased by 10 percent over the past five years .
Premise 2 -Many of local business cater to in SunState cater to retirees
Conclusion- this decline is likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses.
All the premises are about percentages , but the conclusion is about the actual number of retirees . Just because the percentage has decreased , the actual number need not decrease .

A. SunState attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.
 Irrelevant
B. There are far more local businesses in SunState that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees.
 Out of Scope - Businesses that cater to tourists are outside the scope of the argument
C. The number of retirees who have moved out of SunState to accept re-employment in other states has increased over the past five years.
Strengthener
D. SunState has lower property taxes than any other state, making the state a magnet for retirees. 
Irrelevant
E. The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past five years
Correct Answer - The actual number of people who retired and moved to SunState could have remained same or increased .

Answer E

tryambaks · Answer

% and Total Amount problem

Argument talks about 10% decrease in retirees. 
If this 10% decrease corresponds to a final number that is less than the that of previous year then local business has all the reasons to worry
Because for them revenue directly proportional to number retirees.

But If it is the case that % of retirees decrease but to final number does not !! then ? ? Local business has nothing to worry. their revenue is not going down anyway
And How can this happen ?
ONLY If the total number of retirees of the country increases

Last Year
Total 100
% of retiree to Sunstate = 30%
total retiree to Sunstate =30

This Year
Total 200
% of retirre to sunstate = 20%
total retiree to Sunstate = 40

40 >30

This is what needs to happen

Option E says something similar to this :
 The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past five years

Hence (E) is the answer

anairamitch1804 · Answer

Conclusion : - decline in the percentage of retirees who relocate to SunState will have a negative impact on businesses there that cater to retirees.
Weaken :- decline in the percentage of retirees who relocate to SunState will not have a negative impact on businesses there that cater to retirees

option E fits the bill :-
It doesn't really matter if the proportion has decreased, as long as the physical number has increased. Say 5 years ago 500 people retired and moved out of state, out of which 50% or 250 came to SunState. If at present 5000 people retire and move to another state, out of which 40% come to SunState, then that means 2000 retirees. This is an eight-fold increase, which will surely positively impact the businesses.(We are only concerned with business that cater to retirees).

(B) The existence of other businesses in SunState that do not cater to retirees is
not relevant.

zac123 · Answer

In option E nothing about Sunstate is written , so how can we say that this is the correct option.

Skyline393 · Answer

% retirement who moved to Sunstate = Total number of retirees who moved to Sunstate/ Total number of retirees .. If total number of retirees increased significantly and the total number of retirees moved to Sunstate is only a small increase=> There still has a decline in percentage =>In this case, the total no of retirement moved to Sunstate increases thus it positively impacts the economy of Sunstate=> Weaken
For example: 2005: Total no of retirees moved to Sunstate = 100 & Total no of retirees = 400 => % of retirees in Sunstate =25%...
 In 2010, Total no of retirees moved to Sunstate increases to 150 & total no of retirees increased to 1000 => % of retirement in Sunstate = 150/1000 =15%
=> % of retirees in Sunstate decreased by 10%. But in fact, the total no of retirees moved to Sunstate still INCREASED then it had no impact to the Sunstate's economy.=> Thus E

dine5207 · Answer

lately  Bunuel  is doing great job updating the all the official explanations

Of the people who moved from one state to another when they retired

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

Of the people who moved from one state to another when they retired

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