GWD1(Q

winner2006

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, 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?

 

1. Florida attracts more people who move from one state to another when they retire than does any other state.

2. The number of people who move out of Florida to accept employment in other states has increased over the past ten years.

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

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

5. 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.

Clearly the answer should be C. However, it is D. Is the answer wrong?

Thanks.

hutumeimei

Since many local businesses in Florida cater to retirees, this decline is likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses.

winner2006

I didn't see your point here.

gonghao

百分比和绝对数的换算，本题的结论是说move to Florida的人比例减少，会对经济有影响；D说虽然比例减小，但是基数变大，到Florida的人未必减小，所以削弱了结论。

percentage who retired to Florida
  

The total number of people who retired and moved to another state

有区别，下包括上

绝对数得上升，比例减少也未必说进佛罗里达的人就少。

winner2006

Thanks a lot!

Your explanation made much more sense. However, why not C?

My understanding is: The conclusion is the those businesses will decrease. C gave a convincing reason those business will not decrease.

Also, for answer D, even if it is the total number and percentage comparison, D says the total number who retired and moved to another state increased, but it doesn't say the total number moved to Florida increased.

Any further explanation?

Thanks,

gonghao

以下是引用winner2006在2006-12-14 23:26:00的发言：

Thanks a lot!

Your explanation made much more sense. However, why not C?

My understanding is: The conclusion is the those businesses will decrease. C gave a convincing reason those business will not decrease.

Also, for answer D, even if it is the total number and percentage comparison, D says the total number who retired and moved to another state increased, but it doesn't say the total number moved to Florida increased.

Any further explanation?

Thanks,

First question:

Pay attention to the sentence: Since many local businesses in Florida cater to retirees, this decline is likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses.

The conclusion has been drawn intentionly and is talking about the business cater to retiees.So C is beside  the point anyway,

Second question:

Total number is increasing,and meanwhile precentage is decreasing.We can not get that conclusion that total number of people who move to Florida will be surely undermined.Since there will be another situtation that the number will be the same or higher.Since we get such figer from a formulation that get [total number who move to anther state] and [precentage who retired to Florida ] multiplied.Ahead one is increasing and following one is decreasing.We can not get the conclusion as confident as auditor who says this decline is likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses that cater to retirees.

winner2006

Thanks a lot!