b

Hi, This is one of the difficult weaken questions, but as in most diff CR questions the POE will almost always land u to the right answer.

You should notice one flaw in the argument above. (although this is not a flaw question-it could be)
The flaw is that Colson's caused a few stores to be closed. Its given that several replacement stores opened as a result if this. Thus no effect overall. A big word u should not miss here is that Colson was a NONDISCOUNT store.
Above analogy is used to prove events caused by similar of opening of SpendLess DISCOUNT stores.

Notice the discrepancy above ????

Ok now before jumping into the choices I identify an assumption of the argument - "discount and non discount store opening/closing cases and the events triggered by them work in the same fashion " As per this something that attacks this assumption will be the correct answer.

But sadly there is no answer choice that directs contradicts this assumption, thats what makes this question difficult. But still if we look at the options :


A. Many customers of Colson's are expected to do less shopping there than they did
before the SpendLess store opened.

->I am sure u were not considering this ?

B. Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since
Colson's opened have been discount stores.

->Hmm, so what

other 3 options after this are also pretty hopeless.

So a second look at B(after rejecting all other options) reveals that the argument assumption is indeed flawed. The stores that opened following closure of stores due to Carlson's were entirely different type of stores{and not non-discount stores like carlson}. Thus the analogy that the author uses to construct the argument fails at the very root of it.

Lemme know what other options u were considering if u need further help on this.

GmatKiss wrote:Although the discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district are expected to close
within five years as a result of competition from a SpendLess discount department store
that just opened, those locations will not stay vacant for long. In the five years since the
opening of Colson's, a nondiscount department store, a new store has opened at the
location of every store in the shopping district that closed because it could not compete
with Colson's.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. Many customers of Colson's are expected to do less shopping there than they did
before the SpendLess store opened.
B. Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since
Colson's opened have been discount stores.
C. At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as it
ever had.
D. Over the course of the next five years, it is expected that Goreville's population
will grow at a faster rate than it has for the past several decades.
E. Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are not
available at either SpendLess or Colson's.

Explanation required for choices, thanks!

Nice question --

My Reasoning on choosing option B --First find the ASSUMPTION -- (The author assumes that new stores will take the place of the stores shutting down. Why?


Option B gives you a reason why the new stores that opened 5 yrs back managed to survive (because they were discount stores as compared to Colsons which is a NON-DISCOUNT store);. It is given that the existing discount stores are closing as a result of competition from a SpendLess discount department store that just opened.

so why on earth a new discount store will open if the existing ones are unable to compete with Spendless.

Well first i thought its E
E. Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are not
available at either SpendLess or Colson's.

But i did not notice the nondiscount flaw in the ques.....looks like B

B. Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since
Colson's opened have been discount stores.

IMO B