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?
(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.

Hello,

The author says "There will be a noticeable negative economic effect on these businesses"

This he says because the percentage who retired to Florida has decreased by three percentage points over the past ten years

Let's understand what this means - Out of all the retirees who retired to different locations the percentage of people who retired to florida has dropped by 3%.

For instance if the percent of retirees retiring to florida was 33% it's probably dropped to 30% now. The assumption here is that the total number of retirees now and 10 years back is more or less the same.

Lets consider that 10 years back there were 10,000 total retirees; now there are probably 20,000. Is 33% or 10,000 bigger than 30% of 20,000? nope!

Option D points out exactly this. Thus option D is Correct.

Hope this helps!

250

step-by-step explanation:

2 & 7

step-by-step explanation:

he climbs 300 ft/hr at a constant rate. the peak is at 1,500 ft.

when going up, he reaches 600 ft in 2 hours. remember, that he is going in a constant rate. divide 600 with 300:

600/300 = 2

assuming that he takes the same route back (meaning that it's a 1500 ft route back, you can solve.

note also that you are solving when he gets back to 600 ft after he reaches the peak.

first, find the amount of hours it takes to get up the peak. divide the total amount (1500), with the ft/her (300) to get the amount of hours (x):

1500/300 = x

x = 5

it takes jamie 5 hours to get up. now, he is returning down, and reaches 600 (his current destination). remember that he climbs at a constant 300 ft/hr. divide 600 with 300:

600/300 = x

x = 2

now add the two numbers together.

x = 5 + 2 = 7

jamie takes 7 hours to go up the mountain and reach his current position when descending.

(total amount/constant rate) = (time).

remember that it is a constant rate, so in total, when he gets back down the mountain, it will take the same amount of time as when he goes up. the total amount for the round trip is: 5 + 5 = 10.

~