In the United States, of the people who moved from one state to another when they retired, the percentage who...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
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 three percentage points over the past ten years. Since many local businesses in Florida cater to retirees, these declines are likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses and therefore on the economy of Florida.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument given?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| 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 three percentage points over the past ten years. |
|
| Since many local businesses in Florida cater to retirees, these declines are likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses and therefore on the economy of Florida. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument starts with a statistical fact about declining retirement migration to Florida, then uses the dependency of Florida businesses on retirees to predict negative economic consequences.
Main Conclusion:
The decline in retirees moving to Florida will have a noticeably negative economic effect on businesses that cater to retirees and therefore on Florida's economy.
Logical Structure:
This is a causal argument: Statistical trend (fewer retirees choosing Florida) + Dependency relationship (businesses rely on retirees) → Economic consequence (negative impact on businesses and state economy)
Prethinking:
Question type:
Weaken - We need to find information that would reduce our belief in the conclusion that Florida's economy will suffer due to fewer retirees choosing to move there
Precision of Claims
The argument makes a quantity claim (3 percentage point decrease) and links it to a quality prediction (negative economic effect). The key precision issue is that we're talking about percentages of people who move between states when retiring, not absolute numbers or total retiree population
Strategy
To weaken this argument, we need to find scenarios that show why fewer retirees as a percentage might not actually hurt Florida's economy. We can attack the connection between the percentage decline and economic harm. Key areas to consider: the difference between percentages and absolute numbers, alternative sources of economic growth, or factors that make the remaining retirees more valuable economically
This tells us retiring movers travel farther distances now than before. This doesn't help us understand whether Florida is getting more or fewer actual retirees, nor does it address the connection between the percentage decline and economic impact. The distance people travel when retiring is irrelevant to whether Florida's retirement-focused businesses will suffer economically.
Knowing that more people retire to North Carolina doesn't weaken the argument about Florida's economic prospects. In fact, this could support the argument by suggesting that other states are indeed capturing more of the retirement market, potentially at Florida's expense. This choice doesn't address whether Florida is actually getting fewer retirees or whether the economic impact will be negative.
This is the key weakener. The argument assumes that a \(3\text{-point percentage decrease}\) means Florida is getting fewer actual retirees. But if the total number of interstate retiree movers increased significantly, Florida could actually be getting the same number or even more retirees despite its smaller percentage share. For instance, \(22\%\) of a much larger pool could exceed \(25\%\) of the original smaller pool. This breaks the crucial link between percentage decline and economic harm to Florida businesses.
This tells us more people are leaving Florida upon retirement, but this doesn't address the core argument about people moving TO Florida. The argument is specifically about interstate movers choosing Florida as their retirement destination, not about Florida residents leaving. Additionally, we don't know the scale of this outflow compared to the inflow effects discussed in the argument.
This actually supports rather than weakens the argument. If Florida still attracts more interstate retirees than any other state, this makes Florida even more dependent on this population. Therefore, any decline in this group would be particularly harmful to Florida's economy, strengthening rather than weakening the argument's conclusion.