CAT#5: CR: SunState: Out of the people..

[as2764]

Regardless, (C) strengthens the argument that businesses in SunState will suffer (whether or not you catch the "these" indicating businesses that cater to retirees), because (C) indicates a migration out of the state.

all explanations, along with the CAT explanation, are good. BUT, i am still confused with the explanation for (C)

explanation in the CAT results:
Any increase in departure of retirees from SunState to accept re-employment would further damage businesses that serve retirees. However, the argument explicitly discusses the impact of the declining percentage of retirees relocating to SunState, and no other factors, making this answer choice irrelevant. In any case, this answer choice suggests that such businesses will indeed lose business, which would strengthen the conclusion, not weaken it.

the explanation is double-sided as strengthen and irrelevant. i kinda disagree with Emily that (C) strengthens. i think (C) CAN WEAKEN, because it talks about retirees outbound from sunstate to another state. SO, if the number of retirees from sunstate to another state increased, then the retirees to states other than sunstate went up and thus, % of retirees from another state to sunstate can drop due to this increase while the # of retirees to sunstate is maintained to the pre-5yr level.

though retirees from sunstate can also retire in sunstate, this would be IRRELEVANT, because they are not part of the TOTALITY in the question that clearly states Of the people who moved from one state to another when they retired

can you explain, please?

[jnelson0612]

Regardless, (C) strengthens the argument that businesses in SunState will suffer (whether or not you catch the "these" indicating businesses that cater to retirees), because (C) indicates a migration out of the state.

all explanations, along with the CAT explanation, are good. BUT, i am still confused with the explanation for (C)

explanation in the CAT results:
Any increase in departure of retirees from SunState to accept re-employment would further damage businesses that serve retirees. However, the argument explicitly discusses the impact of the declining percentage of retirees relocating to SunState, and no other factors, making this answer choice irrelevant. In any case, this answer choice suggests that such businesses will indeed lose business, which would strengthen the conclusion, not weaken it.

the explanation is double-sided as strengthen and irrelevant. i kinda disagree with Emily that (C) strengthens. i think (C) CAN WEAKEN, because it talks about retirees outbound from sunstate to another state. SO, if the number of retirees from sunstate to another state increased, then the retirees to states other than sunstate went up and thus, % of retirees from another state to sunstate can drop due to this increase while the # of retirees to sunstate is maintained to the pre-5yr level.

though retirees from sunstate can also retire in sunstate, this would be IRRELEVANT, because they are not part of the TOTALITY in the question that clearly states Of the people who moved from one state to another when they retired

can you explain, please?

Ashish,
I'm struggling with understanding all of what you are saying, but let's make it very simple.

The conclusion is that the decline of the proportion of people who choose to retire to SunState will hurt local businesses which cater to retirees.

We need to WEAKEN this argument, or say that the decline of the proportion of people choosing to retire to SunState will NOT hurt local businesses.

C says that "The number of retirees who have moved out of SunState to accept re-employment in other states has increased over the past five years."

So if we have more retirees moving out of the state than before, how can that not hurt the businesses? C does in fact strengthen the argument in my opinion that businesses will be hurt.

Regardless, I think it's most important to focus on the fact that E CLEARLY weakens the argument by exploiting the concept of "the proportion" increasing without taking into account whether "THE NUMBER" of retirees is actually rising or falling.

[as2764]

I'm struggling with understanding all of what you are saying, but let's make it very simple.

The conclusion is that the decline of the proportion of people who choose to retire to SunState will hurt local businesses which cater to retirees.

Jamie, agreed that the conclusion is about businesses in SS being hurt if they get lesser number of retirees. BUT the arguments starts out saying, Of the people who moved from one state to another when they retired. hence, our group TOTALITY is limited to the people moving from one state to another AND NOT to the people retiring within the same state. do you agree?

C says that "The number of retirees who have moved out of SunState to accept re-employment in other states has increased over the past five years."

So if we have more retirees moving out of the state than before, how can that not hurt the businesses? C does in fact strengthen the argument in my opinion that businesses will be hurt.

SO, we should NOT consider retirees who retire within the same state, SS. and thus, if SS retirees move out to another state, then they're increasing the TOTALITY of people moving to a state different than their home state, thereby decreasing the % or proportion of people retiring to SS, since the number of retirees coming into SS from another state remains the same.

Regardless, I think it's most important to focus on the fact that E CLEARLY weakens the argument by exploiting the concept of "the proportion" increasing without taking into account whether "THE NUMBER" of retirees is actually rising or falling.

we can't ignore C, because by addressing the % (as explained above) C also acts as a WEAKENER, causing a contention with E.

[tim]

Ashish, plug in actual numbers and you'll see that your argument fails because the net drop in retirees in SS is positive..

[as2764]

Ashish, plug in actual numbers and you'll see that your argument fails because the net drop in retirees in SS is positive..

Tim, here's my explanation --

(E) is blatant in % error, while (C) is very convoluted a WEAKENER. i would start out with the following statement in the argument:
Of the people who moved from one state to another when they retired means we cannot consider people retiring in their home state such as people from sunstate retiring within sunstate, BUT we have to account for people from sunstate retiring to another state

unless i have gotten the context of the word retirees in (C) wrong--an understanding of which i believe would require more assumptions than we already have and hence, may not be expected--following is an illustration for (C):

consider there are 3 states in total -- a, b, and sunstate (SS).
people can retire from:

a to a
a to b
a to SS
b to a
b to b
b to SS
SS to a
SS to b
SS to SS

since we cannot consider same state retirements, the bold ones above are out. plugging in random #s, we get people retiring from:

a to b = 10
a to SS = 20
b to a = 10
b to SS = 20
SS to a = 10
SS to b = 10

retirees to SS = 40 and total = 80 --> 50% to SS

consider (C) happens and there is an increase in # of retirees moving out of sunstate as below:
a to b = 10
a to SS = 20
b to a = 10
b to SS = 20
SS to a = 10 >> 20
SS to b = 10 >> 20

NOW, retirees to SS is still = 40, but the total = 100 --> 40% to SS

--> a drop of 20%, while the net remains the same, indicating biz in SS will NOT be hurt

[tim]

you have indeed misinterpreted "retirees". the question talks about people moving WHEN they retire, but C talks about people who have already retired moving out of state to accept new (post-retirement) work. does this help?

[as2764]

you have indeed misinterpreted "retirees". the question talks about people moving WHEN they retire, but C talks about people who have already retired moving out of state to accept new (post-retirement) work. does this help?

i do get what you're suggesting, but the language is not clear in C as it is in E or A.
C says The number of retirees who have moved out of SunState to accept re-employment in other states
anybody reading this would think that people have retired from work in sunstate, but want to go to work in another state. this may be absurd, but this is what it suggests. also -- the retirees can be either those who retired from a diff state to sunstate or retirees from within sunstate.

whereas, E and A are very clear in language:
E. The total number of people who retired and moved to another state for their retirement.....
A. SunState attracts more people who move from one state to another when ....

even Stacey clearly mentioned what the argument asks for:

The argument says
(1) Premise: There are a bunch of people who retire and move to another state. Of those, the proportion that choose Sunstate has gone down.
(2) Claim: This represents a decline in the actual number of retirees moving to Sunstate.

[tim]

sorry, the fact that they are "retirees in Sunstate" definitely does NOT mean that they retired from work in Sunstate, especially when the problem makes such a big deal about the fact that a lot of people move to Sunstate when they retire from somewhere else..

[as2764]

this makes sense, thanks.

BUT C is no more a strengthener now. it's plain irrelevant, because the conclusion says:
this decline is likely to have a noticeably negative economic effect on these businesses

what is happening in C WILL have a negative economic effect on businesses in sunstate, BUT it talks about a bunch of retirees who moved out of sunstate to find re-employment -- a group of people having NOTHING to do with the decline. and if it does, it requires too much of a leap to connect the dots as in 'people retired to sunstate, but later changed their minds and thought of working again in another state'. the CAT explanation also says something similar. do you agree?

[tim]

it doesn't matter whether C is a strengthen or neutral. the fact remains that E weakens and is therefore a better answer..