In the United States, of the young adults who move from one state to a

Suppose there is no increase in Number of Students ( Population Remains the same )

California - Year 1 ==> Total No of Students is 10,000 , No of students attending college is 1,000
California - Year 10 ==>Total No of Students is 10,000 , students attending college is 950 ( Considering 5% decrease)

Let's consider the possibility that the number of students ( Assuming Population Increases )

California - Year 1 ==> Total No of Students is 10,000 , No of students attending college is 1,000
California - Year 10 ==>Total No of Students is 15,000 ( Assuming Population Increases ), students attending college is 1425 ( Considering 5% decrease)

Observe there is an actual increase in number of students , from 1000 to 1425 students ( Despite 5% decrease in population )

This suggests that there is an increase in population and there is scope for local business to flourish despite 5% decrease in population.

Hope this helps in understanding the issue a bit...

have enough graduates that are originally from CA to employ? - The statement mentions " local businesses in California cater to college students," , if I am correct (Correct me if I am wrong) it means local Business dependent on College students will suffer ( Example People like Book Stores , Cafeterias etc... ) , I don't think it is about the employment of College students in Local Business. - Plz correct me if I am wrong.

PS : Whenever % is given , always consider the factor " Number " in CR...
_________________

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

Answer A here turns on the distinction between a decline in the percentage of students who move to California and a decline in the actual number of students who move to California. If 95% of a larger number is still greater than 100% of a smaller number, California's businesses have nothing to fear.

Answer B is out of scope, because the distance people moved has no relationship to the number of people who moved.

Answer C is out of scope because we have no information about how New York compares to California.

Similarly, we have no information about how the number of students leaving California compares to the number of students coming to California, so choice D is also wrong.

Choice E should be eliminated because the argument does not depend on where California ranks in terms of states that are attractive to the college-bound; even though it is the most popular state in attracting out-of-state students, if its number of students has decreased significantly, it could still feel a noticeable economic effect.
_________________

The percentage of college student decreased. So if there were more people overall who goes to others states for college overall it could mean that there is actually more college students in California rather than less. They might be a smaller fraction of the population, but the total number has increased.

you mean there are more students orginally from Calofirnia than there are students in California?
Therefore, business have enough graduates that are originally from CA to employ?


Edit: I get it now... Business seek college students no matter where they are from. They don't have to be from California. Thus even if there are less students in CA, there are more students over all , and therefore there are still enough people that can be employed..

Correct?

We need to prove that these declines will not have any noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses.
Key point in this ques - Decreasing percentages does not mean decreasing numbers. Consider the following scenario:

10 years ago:
Total # of young adults who move from one state to another to attend college = 100
Of it, those who move to California = 15(ie 15%)
Now:
Total # of young adults who move from one state to another to attend college = 200
Of it, those who move to California = 20(ie 10%)

Thus even though percentages have declined, the absolute numbers have increased(15 to 20). This is because the total the total has increased(100 to 200)
(A) is correct since it says exactly the same that the total(Total # of young adults who move from one state to another to attend college) has increased.

I am not very impressed with the OA explanation given by the Veritus

The argument talks about the negative impact on the local business and economy of "California", and not any other state. And since the argument says many local businesses in California cater to college students - we should be more interested in college students in California
Option A : Talks about overall increase in number of (mind, I am not talking %tage movement) movement of adults from one state to another. Say, Movement from Connecticut to New York has increased by 500%, but that into California has decreased by 5% ( here overall increase in 'number' of students across United States is there, but California sees a decrease) . This options does not talks anything about the availability of college students in California Market.

Option E : This option says CA attracts more young adults than any other state. This means, even with a 5% decrease, CA is the state that imports the MOST students. I do acknowledge that "more" young students might still not off-set the 5% decline - but then this is the best answer choice I can pick; atleast much clear that Option A.

Had Option A said that "The number of young adults who moved from another state to California to attend college has increased significantly over the past ten years " - I am more than happy to accept this as the best answer choice.

An expert on this - Please let me know your thoughts !

we are talking about percentage...but what if the overall number of students who move from one state to another has increased greatly?
for ex:
10 years ago - 100 moved, 10 came to CA - 10% moved to CA
now = 1000 moved, 50 came to CA - 5% moved to CA
it is true that percentage decreased 5%, but overall, the number of students increased, and thus, the conclusion that the local business will not have to whom to cater is shattered.

only A is in the scope and directly addresses this issue.
B is completely irrelevant
C talks about NY so no
D this is a strengthener ... so out
E still doesn't weaken the conclusion..

In the United States, of the young adults who move from one state to another to attend college,
the percentage who attend college in California has decreased by five percentage points over the past ten years.

Since many local businesses in California cater to college students,these declines are likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses and therefore on the economy on California

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

a.)The number of young adults who moved from one state to another to attend college has increased significantly over the past ten years............so even if the percentage decreases the actual can be more than sufficient. This weakening the conclusion.

b.)Young adults who moved from one state to another to attend college moved a greater distance,on average, last year than such people did ten years ago..............greater distance does not indicate anything. last year in comparison with ten years ago is out of scope.

c.)Young adults were more likely to move from another state to attend college in New York last year than young adults were ten years ago.........out of scope as this is reg new york not california

d.)The number of young adults who left California to attend college in another state was greater last year than it was ten years ago.
same reasoning as of B

e.)California attracts more young adults who move from one state to another to attend college than does any other state.
comparatively it may do good in attracting students but still the situation may or may not be favorable thus neither strengthens nor weakens the conclusion.

To weaken the argument, always figure out conclusion in CR.

Here conclusion is - Due to a decrease in the percentage of people attending college, there would be negative economic effect in California.

Premise - Many local businesses are totally driven by college students.

So now pre-phase the possibilities to attack the conclusion:

The percentage in CR - always look for Numbers. The number might not be decreased. If we have a statement saying that Population increases rapidly that without effect on college attending people, the number seemed to be decreased. So the answer A is apt for the situation.

It says the population increased rapidly, so the percentage decreased but actual number might be more. So A is the answer.

In the United States, of the young adults who move from one state to another to attend college, the percentage who attend college in California has decreased by five percentage points over the past ten years. Since many local businesses in California cater to college students, these declines are likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses and therefore on the economy of California.

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

A. The number of young adults who moved from one state to another to attend college has increased significantly over the past ten years.
Correct. The premise says that the percentage decreased, but what if the actual number of students increased? Then there is no need to worry about the economy, since the actual number of people haven't reduced.

B. Young adults who moved from one state to another to attend college moved a greater distance, on average, last year than such people did ten years ago.
We are not worried about the average distance covered.

C. Young adults were more likely to move from another state to attend college in New York last year than young adults were ten years ago.
We are not worried about the movement of students to NYC

D. The number of young adults who left California to attend college in another state was greater last year than it was ten years ago.
We are worried about the students coming to California and not about those leaving California.

E. California attracts more young adults who move from one state to another to attend college than does any other state.
Okay, let California attract more students. It doesn't actually so anything to the argument. Its just a fact set.

The conclusion: The economy of California will be hurt.
The premise: Of those who move from one state to another to attend college, a smaller percentage are moving to California now than were moving to California ten years ago.

Let's think about this. Say that ten years ago 10% of students moving from state to state were moving to California. Now 5% of students moving state are moving to California. Does that mean that the absolute number of students moving to California for school has declined? Not necessarily. What if ten years ago, 10,000 students moved from one state to another for school, and 10% went to CA. That's 1000 students. Today, if, say, 50,000 students were moving from one state to another, and 5% were coming to CA, that would be 2500 students.

So the economy wouldn't be hurt! In other words, if the total number of students moving from state to state has gone up significantly, then the smaller percentage moving to CA doesn't necessarily mean that fewer students are moving to CA. This is the idea captured in A

GMATNinja

Please provide your input on this question.

IMO answer should be (E)

arpitkansal - Let me know if any open ended doubt you have.

In the United States, of the young adults who move from one state to another to attend college, the percentage who attend college in California has decreased by five percentage points over the past ten years.

------- The moment you read these lines you have to tell yourself that the actual number may have increased(may not too.). as this one is of percentage, you have to open for a number vs percentage debate.

Since many local businesses in California cater to college students,these declines are likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses and therefore on the economy on California.

Pre-thinking - Now notice the reasoning, business depends on students, students % is declining so a negative impact on business. we need to weaken the question. so simply break the reasoning. somehow an answer is saying that students are not decreasing. mind that even not decreasing can help us.

(A) The number of young adults who moved from one state to another to attend college has increased significantly over the past ten years.

if total students increased then then chances are that percentage of students might not decrease. hope you can prove this mathematically. if not, np. just know that this concept is asked in gmat many time.be aware.

(E) California attracts more young adults who move from one state to another to attend college than does any other state.

think of this choice is this way, even though California does that, do you think it is making any impact on our reasoning. Think of it this way. an ad is broadcasted highest number of times does this mean for sure that it will increase its sale. yes take the advantage of ambiguity in the argument. Gmat, specially the tough questons, are on these grounds.

Question analysis:
If there are some "x" students moving from one state to another, and before 10 years 80% moved to California, over the 10 years 80% has dropped to 75%.
The argument says that this decrease in percentage students moving to California will have a negative economic effect on the overall economy of the state.

If we read the argument carefully, the author seems to making a big assumption that the number of students have remained constant over the 10 years. May be the number of students that used to move from one state to another has increased to 100,000 from 1000. Thus the number of students moving to California (based on assumed percentage) actually improve from 800 to 75,000.

Question - Weaken

Option Analysis:

(A) The number of young adults who moved from one state to another to attend college has increased significantly over the past ten years.
This is exactly what we had previously thought. Correct answer

(B) Young adults who moved from one state to another to attend college moved a greater distance,on average, last year than such people did ten years ago.
This means that the greater number of students are moving from, say, east coast to west coast of from west coast to east coast. In any case, the conclusion is not weakened or strengthened.

(C) Young adults were more likely to move from another state to attend college in New York last year than young adults were ten years ago.
We can say that there is a higher percentage of students moving to New York. So we can argue that these students are moving to New York instead of moving to California. However, if the number has increased to as discussed in "analysis", the increase in this percentage can hardly affect the conclusion.

(D) The number of young adults who left California to attend college in another state was greater last year than it was ten years ago.
But this option does not provide sufficient information about number of students that shifted to California

(E) California attracts more young adults who move from one state to another to attend college than does any other state.
Let us say that 10 years ago, of 10000 California attracted 5000 students. And last year of the 100,000 California attracted 9000. The rest 91000 can be divided in 91 regions to provide 1000 per region --> This scenario strengthens the conclusion.
However, we can also construct a different scenario where California attracted 20,000 and the rest 80000 were divided among 91 regions. Hence, both cases are feasible.
In addition to that, we do not have any information about regional distribution of students, number of students (increase/decrease) etc.


Thus A is the right answer!

Dear experts please help!! still do not agree with option A.
What if number of young adults who moved from California to New York has increased tremendously, so much so that it bring down the percentage to a sufficiently lower level too. In this condition it would rather strengthen the argument, OR,
What if, number of young adults who moved from New Jersey to New York has increased but is same in California, than it would have no economic effect.

I believe that option A must mention California somewhere for more clarity, eg:
(A) The number of young adults who moved from other states to California to attend college has increased significantly over the past ten years.

Hi Ansh

Please not that the stimulus only mentions California in the proportion of students moving in. And the conclusion relies on an absolute number of students. Therefore, we are looking for something to break this assumption - that a reduction in proportion implies a reduction in number. Option (A) does that well.

The scenarios you mention are plausible, no doubt. However, they would need to be specified in some way either in the stimulus or in the answer option. Else, at this point, these are merely assumptions regarding the option (A) itself, which cannot be considered in our analysis at this point.

Finally, of the given options, option (A) does the best job of weakening the argument. No doubt, it would have been better if incoming to California (in number) was somehow mentioned. But the absence of such a detail by itself does not make option (A) incorrect.

Hope this helps.
_________________

Hi experts,

Please help to explain this question, why each option is right or wrong.

I see the OA (option A) provides data in general (for the US), which may not be true for the subgroup (California) in question stem.

Thanks

Hi CrackVerbalGMAT

But isn't (A) a mere generalization? I agree that the stimulus only talks about California but we cannot assume anything, correct?
Here, one state to another can be anything.

Can experts help?VeritasKarishma

chetan2u yashikaaggarwal Please could you answer my query here?

But isn't (A) a mere generalization? I agree that the stimulus only talks about California but we cannot assume anything, correct?
Here, one state to another can be anything.

Cheers!