carouselambra wrote:
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!
It may be generalization but restricts itself to the group of people we are talking of:
students moving from one state to another.5% drop from the number of students ten years back =>
Say, there were 50 students out of 200 ten years back, making the % as 25% of total.
Ten years later, this % has become 20%. But 20% of WHAT?: A significantly higher number.
So if the number has become 300 now, the number of students moving to California now becomes 20% of 300, which is 60.
Thus, there should be no effect on economy.
FITS in our reasoning.
But you can always assume another scenario:-Say, there were 14 students out of 200 ten years back, making the % as 7% of total.
Ten years later, this % has become 7-5 or 2%. But 2% of WHAT?: A significantly higher number.
So if the number has become 300 now, the number of students moving to California now becomes 2% of 300, which is just 6.
Thus, there should be some effect on economy.
Does not FIT in our reasoning
OR
You can even talk of absence of details of students moving out of California.Rather, this may be a solution for weakening of another similar worded question but that talks of increase of 5% rather than decrease of 5%.
BUT,
the question is to choose the BEST possible answer.Does any other choice weakens the reasoning more?...NO
You will be tested on this concept on many occasions, be it for weakening or strengthening.
And, almost every time you will be able to question the correct option.
So, you are not looking for an answer that is 100% foolproof, but for an answer that is the best in the given options and an answer that has the ability to affect the reasoning.