The percentage of global tourists who visit Kokua has increased by fiv

A percentage/number passage.
The percentage of global tourists who visit Kokua has increased by five percentage points over the past three years. Since tourism contributes an estimated 7% of Kokua's gross domestic product, this increase is likely to have a positive impact on the economy of Kokua.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument given?

Let's jot down the points.
Premise: % of T increased 5%points in K
Premise: T -> 7% of GDP of K
Conclusion: increase in T +ve impact to economy of K

According to what I have learnt from CR Bible, most people assume increase in percentage means increase in numbers. This is not necessarily true because the total number/group size can be small. (and vice-versa).
Example: From 2001 to 2011, the sale of X increased by less than 10%. Also, sale of Y increased by more than 50% during the period- and so did the increase in the revenue.
This 50% increase gives an impression that the jump has been substantial. It may/may not be true. It is possible that the sale of Y increased from 100 units to 150 units and sale of X increased from from 300 units to 309 units.

General rules for or weaken & strengthen questions.
To weaken or strengthen an argument containing numbers and percentage, look carefully for information about the total amount/s-does the argument make an assumption based on the misconception that I mentioned above?

Since the percentage in the passage seems to be increasing, we don't know whether the actual number of tourists increased or not. You see the fault here that can be strengthened? If the passage mentions that the actual amount of tourists increased as well, then that would strengthen the argument. Also, generally, if the passage is related to number/percentages, the answers must be related to number/percentages. That helps us chop down option A, B and E.

A. People who visit international destinations travel a much greater distance to their destination, on average, currently than such people did three years ago.
INCORRECT. For the above mentioned reason. Also, tourists traveling long distances for at least 3 days is irrelevant to strengthen the point regarding how tourism improves positive impact on the economy of Kokua.

B. People are more likely to visit Kokua's neighbor countries for pleasure now than they were three years ago.
INCORRECT. For the above mentioned reason. Plus out of scope. Unnecessary information that in now way strengthens the argument.

C. The number of people who travel internationally for pleasure has increased slightly over the past three years.
CORRECT. Aahhaa...it mentions the number of people. Okay let's see what's the information following the number of people. The # of people who travel internationally increased then it is highly possible that they must have visited Kokua because of which their tourism % increased in the past 3 years.

D. The percentage of people who choose to revisit an international tourist destination within a year of a given prior visit has increased dramatically in the last two years.
INCORRECT. Yet a contender since it contains 'percentage' in the sentence. Let's examine the rest of the passage. % increase in revisit does not mean that the number of visitors increased. Same as the misconception I mentioned above.

E. Kokua is the leading international tourist destination in its region.
INCORRECT. For the above mentioned reason. And also it doesn't matter if a place is leading tourist destination since it doesn't confirm most people visit that place or not.

+1 kudos if you find my post helpful.