It is currently 20 Oct 2017, 09:37

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

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

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 05 Jul 2004
Posts: 893

Kudos [?]: 65 [1], given: 0

This thread will be used to collect tips and tricks for CR. [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Mar 2005, 18:55
1
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (00:09) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 2 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

This thread will be used to collect tips and tricks for CR. Please feel free to discuss and add.

-Hong

Percentage Trap

I would like to add Percentage Trap to this llist. It can be best explained with this example:

In the United States, of the people who moved from one state to another when they retired, the percentage who retired to Florida has decreased by 3 percentage points over the past ten years. Since many local businesses in Florida 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. Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.
B. The number of people who move out of Florida to accept employment in other states has increased over the past ten years.
C. There are far more local businesses in Florida that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees.
D. The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past ten years.
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.

Anand's explaination:
Guys this is a beauty. Please hammer this into your head. This is a standard percentage trap. Let me elaborate.

Assume that last year 1000 people in the US moved out of state to retire.
Of this say 10% moved to florida = 100 people
So 90% moved to states other than florida right?

This year 20000 people moved to other state to retire
Of this say 8% moved to florida = 160 people.
So 92% moved to states other than florida right?

Though the %of people moving to florida has decreased (because %of people moving to otherstates has increased) number of people moving to florida has infact increased from 100 to 160. So the local businesses are gonna do great.

The bold portion is what (D) says and thus weakens the argument more seriously than (C).

Last edited by jpv on 02 Mar 2005, 22:28, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 65 [1], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 6

Kudos [?]: 1 [1], given: 0

### Show Tags

10 Jan 2006, 21:20
1
KUDOS
In my opion C is not correct due to following reason:

C. There are far more local businesses in Florida that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees.

This statement does not weaken or strengthen author's claim of impact on "local businesses in Florida cater to retirees" and hence not an option.

Even though there are less businesses that cater to retirees (than tourists), it does not mean that they will not feel the impact if there were less ritirees settling in Florida.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Cheers!
_________________

Singh

Kudos [?]: 1 [1], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 08 Feb 2005
Posts: 27

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

Re: Percentage Trap [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Mar 2005, 12:51
You considered C as the close option. Can you explain whay not A?

thanks,
Prema

jpv wrote:
I was looking for this kind of thread. Thanks HongHu.

I would like to add Percentage Trap to this llist. It can be best explained with this example:

In the United States, of the people who moved from one state to another when they retired, the percentage who retired to Florida has decreased by 3 percentage points over the past ten years. Since many local businesses in Florida 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. Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.
B. The number of people who move out of Florida to accept employment in other states has increased over the past ten years.
C. There are far more local businesses in Florida that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees.
D. The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past ten years.
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.

Anand's explaination:
Guys this is a beauty. Please hammer this into your head. This is a standard percentage trap. Let me elaborate.

Assume that last year 1000 people in the US moved out of state to retire.
Of this say 10% moved to florida = 100 people
So 90% moved to states other than florida right?

This year 20000 people moved to other state to retire
Of this say 8% moved to florida = 160 people.
So 92% moved to states other than florida right?

Though the %of people moving to florida has decreased (because %of people moving to otherstates has increased) number of people moving to florida has infact increased from 100 to 160. So the local businesses are gonna do great.

The bold portion is what (D) says and thus weakens the argument more seriously than (C).

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
Posts: 2

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

15 Mar 2005, 11:08
If A says something like below, it could seriously weaken the argument. Otherwise, the negative effect may still be there...

A. Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state over past ten years.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
Posts: 2

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

15 Mar 2005, 11:12
to make it clear:
Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state. The percentage of attraction grows over past ten years.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 08 Feb 2005
Posts: 27

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

15 Mar 2005, 11:39
Well I was confused bet. A& D. But I guess D explains it better.

Thanks,
Prema

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 77

Kudos [?]: 164 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Mar 2005, 19:27
Like Prema, I thought (A) is the right answer, but see (D) is the best one.

However, can somebody help me to better understand why A is not correct? Is A a wrong anser, or just not better than (D)?

I see some explanation adding "over past ten years", but don't really find a reason to justify A is not correct. Thank you.
_________________

Best regards,

Kudos [?]: 164 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 05 Jul 2004
Posts: 893

Kudos [?]: 65 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2005, 16:56
Principle: something fundamental that we do not question. This would be somewhat stronger than a fact because it is not specific to a limited number of cases but instead, apply to a broader range of scenarios(and often deeper in meaning). For instance, you will not talk about the principle that crime is increasing in large cities. Instead, it is a fact which applies to large cities. However, you will talk about the principles of Physics or the fundamental principles of Human Rights. I believe principles convey a stronger connotation than mere facts.

Fact: something taken as true at face value (stats, historical events)

Evidence: what is used to support a conclusion (examples, stats, historical events). Although these may include facts, it is usually stronger than facts because they are direct elements needed for the conclusion to stand whereas facts are not necessary for the latter to stand

Pre-evidence: This is a bit of a stretch. It will not often be on the test but it seems very similar to "background" information as described below.

Background: Elements needed to put the evidence into context but which, as stand alone pieces of information, might not constitute what is called an evidence necessary to arrive at a conclusion. For instance, blood tests performed on one thousand persons may reveal that 35% of those persons were HIV infected. However, the background information could be that the test was performed in more underinformed regions of the world where AIDS knowledge is at a minimum. As you can see, the fact that the test was performed in more underinformed regions is not in and of itself an evidence because it does not allow us to come to a conclusion. Instead, the 35% stats, as a stand-alone piece of info, is what will lead us to the conclusion we want. However, the background info is also crucial and cannot be omitted; it is required background info.

Consideration: Something which was taken into account or given some thought before arriving to the conclusion.

Premise: This is usually a required statement to arrive at a conclusion. Evidence and facts want to prove something to you whereas premises are there to logically lead you to a conclusion. The best example of premises is the ones included in syllogisms. For instance, you can say that(premise1) when it rains, you go outside. Then, it rains(premise2). You have to be outside(conclusion).

Assumption: Unstated information which will link the argument to a logical conclusion. Without this, the argument falls apart.

Conclusion: Self-explanatory

Inference: Something that might not be explicitly stated or proved. For instance, you may say that 95% of GMAT test-takers have over 340. We can reasonably infer that Anthony will get more than 340 on his GMAT based on the fact given. I think the main difference b/w an inference and a conclusion is that the former might not be the final line of an argument. For instance, there could be facts/evidence given, an inference in b/w, and then the conclusion. An inference can be an intermediate step before the conclusion which will sum up the whole passage. Also, a conclusion seems to be stronger because it is based on stronger facts/evidence. As in my previous example, we can reasonably infer that Anthony got 340+ on his GMAT but we cannot conclude that he got 340+. See the nuance?

Kudos [?]: 65 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Posts: 896

Kudos [?]: 54 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2005, 19:43
I can't seem to see a clear distinction between Inference and Assumption. Anyone care to shed some light? Thanks

Kudos [?]: 54 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 595

Kudos [?]: 275 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2005, 21:36
So what are other traps? Hong Hu, since you are so good at them, perhaps you can add your picks.
_________________

Regards, S

Kudos [?]: 275 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 15 May 2005
Posts: 1

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Location: India

### Show Tags

23 May 2005, 13:15
Hi there....
i jus read ur post over here and i have some doubts which if ne 1 cd please explain....the choice that u say reads as follows:

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

the first part of this sentence clearly says that the total no. of people moving to the other staes for retirement has increased and not the total no of people who retired!!

please explain whether this is a valid doubt coz i find option C to be a better and a noncontrovertial option!!

thanx....
inder oberoi

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 22 Dec 2004
Posts: 1

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Location: India

### Show Tags

30 May 2005, 21:58
hi guys,

this my first post...

the distinction b/w inference and assumption is that assumption is always for conclusion....

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2231

Kudos [?]: 377 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

31 May 2005, 21:49
Assumption is something you need for you to draw your conclusion. Inference is a judgement that you draw from existing facts.
_________________

Keep on asking, and it will be given you;
keep on seeking, and you will find;
keep on knocking, and it will be opened to you.

Kudos [?]: 377 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 22 May 2005
Posts: 139

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2005, 07:58
Nice post guys...I liked the example too..

Yes inference is the stage just before the conclusion, it may or may not correct. Say, there is a factor of 'doubt' attached with inference but not with conclusion [ we are not talking about Weakening or Strengthening the same here ]

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 3

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Location: delhi

### Show Tags

28 Jul 2005, 22:36
With all options available and applying POE as well, we land up as the least stinking one and that is D, I believe with the way explanation has been done, i find D as the possible choice, Anyways whats the OA?

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 02 Nov 2005
Posts: 4

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

23 Dec 2005, 10:49
Real Good one JBV... Never looked at these Q from the % perspective before. Guess C would have been the right answer without considering the percentage angle.

Thanks

Thimmaiah.B.M
_________________

Thimmaiah B M

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Posts: 20

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

31 Dec 2005, 17:03
I think the answer is 'D'
_________________

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Posts: 42

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Jan 2006, 12:35

A is wrong because they are talking Florida has more number of people coming in than any other state.. this matter is irrelevant since we are talking about the percentage drop in the number of people coming to florida. Note, you can still have a percentage drop in population coming into florida and still have a greater number of people coming into Florida than any other state. So A does not weaken the argument as much as D.

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 9

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Location: U to the... S to the A

### Show Tags

10 Mar 2006, 08:41
A and C cant be answers possibly for the below question :
Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.
The idea is not to compare florida with any other state, the conclusion deals with local businesses in florida depending on retirees in florida.

D.
A. In the United States, of the people who moved from one state to another when they retired, the percentage who retired to Florida has decreased by 3 percentage points over the past ten years. Since many local businesses in Florida cater to retirees, this decline is likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses.

C. There are far more local businesses in Florida that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees.
The above statement, assumes the business catering to tourists will offset the losses incurred by businesses catering to tourists, thats assuming the number of tourists atleast remains the same, or doesnt go below the current level. it is quite possible that the number of tourists does infact has reduced over the past ten years. We cant safely assume the pattern of number of tourists over the last ten years.

hence D makes the logical sense, based on POE.

Or was i totally hopeless there....??

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

A. Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.
B. The number of people who move out of Florida to accept employment in other states has increased over the past ten years.
C. There are far more local businesses in Florida that cater to tourists than there are local businesses that cater to retirees.
D. The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement has increased significantly over the past ten years.
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.
_________________

share and grow....

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 20

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Location: Visakhapatnam, India

### Show Tags

08 May 2006, 04:37
Moreover, in all the percentage problems, please notice that there can always be a chance of a flaw in terms of the "TOTAL NUMBER". Most of the percentage problems tests on that particular point.

What is your observation.

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

08 May 2006, 04:37

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 39 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.