This thread will be used to collect tips and tricks for CR.

You can always argue about the significance of "significant"; Compare C with D, however, you can see that D is more related to the argument in the fashion of evidence-conclusion.

Thus D is correct here. C also weakens it, but it drifts further from the logic of the argument than D does.

I completely agree. The only logical statement weakening the argument is D.

I agree w/ D. It indeed says that the total number of people who move to other states when they retire is larger, so even if from a % point of view, such number has decreased for Florida, in absolute numbers it has increased.

Though I am late in my explanation, I will nevertheless answer.

A says " Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state" Which implies that out of total number of people who retire and move to another state , Florida has larger share. This in no way is clear what is the proportion of those retirees coming to Florida. hence A is not sufficient. I think this is one of the greater traps.
D is the correct answer. Because if the total number of retirees has increased significantly, then the 3% figure does not mean the number of retirees in Florida is reduced and hence there is no loss to Local businesses. Hence D weakens the statement properly.

Thanks.

Yes D is clearly the right answer.

There is another percentage-based CR from OG 11 that has me confused. It is the sample question # 81 on page 491 of OG 11. The explanation provided is not quite clear and convincing to me.

Does anyone care to discuss this question?

Though the OG problem deals with % it's not in the same league as the problem being discussed in this thread - The percentage trap is applicable where fluctuations in percentages are used as a decoy to hide real facts - for ex while the percentage of retirees to florida dropped the ABSOLUTE NUMBER of retirees actually went up; eventually, so long as the absolute number keeps increasing - the business profitability would not take a hit.

Returning to the OG example - the percentages are used to show that radar equipped cars though a minority vis-a-vis non-radar equipped cars constitute a significantly higher percentage of ticketed cars - this makes the author conclude that drivers of radar equipped cars are likely to exceed the speed limit regularly... how can this be concluded UNLESS we assume that those who are ticketed once are more likely to be ticketed again - which is stated in B and hence the correct answer.

Thanks for clarifying, dwivedy!

Thanks for clarifying, dwivedy!

Keep up the good work

Javed.

Cheers!

This is really a good post giving good insight into CR strategies...

option "c" is not correct since they say there are more business catering to tourists but not stating whether the no of tourists has increased or not..

option "a" is not correct since it just states that Florida "attracts" more retirees but the question says the the no has decreased..!!

Cheers,
Hem

Hi, I have recently joined. Hope this will help some:

Answer choice "C" merely changes the premises to the conclusion, the evidence the conclusion is based on. It is complete contradiction, which is wrong in its nature.

Answer choice "A" - it is great that Florida attracts more retired people than any other state does. But suppose that during the last ten years less people have retired at all in the whole country or simply less of the retired have moved anywhere. It means that retired people in Florida despite that it attracts those more than any other state does will be less now... and local companies indeed will be effected.

D. Also notice that C does not weaken the argument... it actually shifts the arguments focus just a bit.

C doesnt explain why "Since many local businesses in Florida cater to retirees" these local businesses that cater to retires will not suffer. Just b/c other businesses wont doesnt mean that these businesses wont as well. C warps the argument. If you saw this you could still use the numbers approach, which is still helpful, or successfully POE to D.

Situation : # of retirees moving into Florida has been decreased in the last 10 years and this might potentially have -ve impact on local business's economy.

A. Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.
>>> We have no idea about Florida's comparison to other States. So, drop this !
B. The number of people who move out of Florida to accept employment in other states has increased over the past ten years.
>>> This agrees with the argument (people moving out of jobs in Florida in the past 10 yrs). So, drop this !
C. There are far more local businesses in Florida that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees.
>> If this is true, decreasing # of retirees settling in Florida will not impact the economy of local businesses. So, this might weaken the argument => Answer !
D. The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past ten years.
>> This contradicts the fact mentioned in the statement. Rather total # of people who retired and moved to another state HAS DECREASED.

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.
>> No idea or data about # of retired migrants of last year and its comparison to 10 years back. Drop this !

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.