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

Question

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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

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

Abhishek009 · Accepted Answer

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... :-D

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...

Helium · Answer

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.

kys123 · Answer

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.

ZLukeZ · Answer

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?

ankurjaini · Answer

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 !

gmatexam439 · 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.

rever08 · Answer

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

Ansh777 · 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.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

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.

carouselambra · Answer

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!

chetan2u · Answer

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.

KarishmaB · Answer

Of the young adults who move from one state to another to attend college, the percentage who attend college in California has decreased by 5 percentage points. 
Many local businesses in California cater to college students,

Conclusion: these declines are likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses and therefore on the economy on California.

Now, here is the problem - does the decrease of 5% mean that number of students coming has actually reduced? what if in absolute numbers, same or more number of students are coming. This is akin to market share and actual sales. 
We are given that share of California from the pie of "all young adults moving to study" has decreased but what if the pie itself has increased a whole lot?

For example, say 10 yrs ago, 100 students used to move. 25% used to come to California. So 25 used to come. 
Now, 200 students move but 20% come to California (5% points decrease). So 40 come now.

Even though the percentage coming in has reduced, if overall number of students moving has increased, we could still be getting more students today than 10 yrs ago.

That is what (A) says. 
(A) The number of young adults who moved from one state to another to attend college has increased significantly over the past ten years.
It says that the number of 100 (in our example) has gone up significantly (say to 200). 
Then number of students coming in may not have decreased and hence, we weaken the conclusion. The businesses may not suffer.

carouselambra

agrasan · Answer

Hi  KarishmaB

Is my reasoning to eliminate (E) correct?

(E) California attracts more young adults who move from one state to another to attend college than does any other state.  
 This has no impact because we don't know whether the  young adults attracted to California + young adults who attend college in California  has decreased over the past ten years. (E) doesn't provide clarity on this, thus, irrelevant for us.

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

agrasan  hi, the option E doesn't provide any information about the number, it has just presented the comparison between california and other state regarding the youth who are attracted to attend the college which is not relevant. And your analysis about attraction and attending is quite true, even though the no. Of attracted is more than the other we cant say anything about the increase or decrease.

guddo · 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?

The argument goes from “California’s share of out of state college movers fell” to “California will have fewer such students, so student focused businesses and the state economy will suffer.” The key weakness is that a lower percentage does not necessarily mean a lower number. If the total pool grew enough, California could have the same or more out of state students.

(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 directly weakens. If the total number of interstate college movers rose a lot, then even with a five point drop in California’s percentage, the absolute number going to California might not have dropped, so the predicted economic harm is not supported.

(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.

Distance does not tell us whether fewer students went to California or whether businesses would be hurt. Largely irrelevant.

(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.

This just suggests some other state gained share. That is consistent with California’s share falling, but it does not show California’s number fell or that its economy would be harmed.

(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.

That concerns Californians leaving, not out of state students coming in. It could affect California colleges, but it does not directly address the specific group the argument uses to predict harm to student serving businesses.

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

This can still be true even if California’s share dropped, and it does not contradict the claim of decline. It does not weaken the predicted harm.

Answer: (A)

guddo · Answer

Yes, your elimination logic is basically right, with one small wording tweak.

(E) is a “most of all states” fact at a point in time. It can be true even if California’s share fell and even if the number going to California fell. So it does not speak to the key issue, which is whether the  number  of out of state college movers going to California actually declined enough to hurt those businesses.

The only fix: you do not need “young adults attracted to California + young adults who attend college in California.” The argument’s data is only about  out of state movers who attend college in California , so keep it focused on that group.

KarishmaB · Answer

Yes, we are given that California's chunk of the pie has reduced from before. Does it matter that it still has the largest chunk out of all states? No. 
The comparison is between California's previous share and today's share only, not between states.

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

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

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

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards