Critical Reasoning

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.

imo:E

explanation if d OA...

No its Not E

oopps...

IMO:B

initially i mistook d question ... was looking for an answer tat satisfys d situation...sorry

the new stores cannot last because of competation from SpendLess discount department store

OA??

OA is B !
could a explain a bit more plz??

Conclusion ---Comparison between discount store A vs Dicount store B
and evidence offered is for Non discount stores..
B points this out

Jatinder wrote:Conclusion ---Comparison between discount store A vs Dicount store B
and evidence offered is for Non discount stores..
B points this out

I could not agree more. B says that the discount stores replaced the non-discount stores.
The premise used is that last time new stores opened in place of old stores, the. However when these discount stores close, what kind of stores will replace them.
So B weakens the argument.

HI..sorry for d late reply..

lets dissect this...

IMO..
premise1: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,

premise 2: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.

conclusion: those locations will not stay vacant for long

we need to weaken this..
lets try to prove the locations will stay vacant for long..

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

There is a causal condition and comparison between 2 situations here..

according to premise 1:
competition from a SpendLess discount department=>>discount stores in Goreville’s are expected to close

But those locations will not stay vacant for long

from premise 2:
since the opening of Colson’s=>> a new store has opened at the location of every store

Here the conclusion is based on premise 2..
Just because 2 happened 1 will not happen

B says that the stores opened in place have been discounted stores=>> thus they wil get competition from SpendLess discount department=>>
which might lead to close down and thus those locations will stay vacant for long..

this weakens the conclusion.. d argument falls apart!
thus B

thx!!

If we take B, which means that the new stores that are opening are discount stores can compete with Calson's and hence the stores will not be closed and the place will not be vacant. So I don't think it weakens the argument.
I don't think just because a store is discount is enough to weaken the argument.


I think C is pretty close. If there are already lot of stores in the shopping dist. thus reducing the need for more stores and hence the stores that closed down might remain vacant for little longer time.

Hi,

If we take B, which means that the new stores that are opening are discount stores can compete with Calson's and hence the stores will not be closed and the place will not be vacant. So I don't think it weakens the argument.
I don't think just because a store is discount is enough to weaken the argument.

Your answer lies in your question. (In CR language we say this is circular reasoning...lolz Just kidding )

Lets break the argument again(once this has been done by Rauneek)

Conclusion : those locations will not stay vacant for long.

Why ?? : The author draws a parallelism from another incident which goes on as : 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.

It is very important to know the structure and the scope of the argument. Here the way B is weakening is by providing an alternative cause to an effect. If you go through the chapter of Cause and Effect(PowerScore Bible), it would be much more evident.The chapter gives various ways in which a cause-and effect relationship can be weakend.

I think C is pretty close. If there are already lot of stores in the shopping dist. thus reducing the need for more stores and hence the stores that closed down might remain vacant for little longer time.

C is out of scope. How one can predict the scope. Please go through the link I am providing.I solved this question and I think this will help you to learn about out of scope Options

https://www.beatthegmat.com/disability-b ... tml#180127

My thoughts on why E is wrong:

If you notice there is a subtle scope shift in E. While the first line of the argument talks about 'the discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district' option E talks about 'many stores' which may or may not be discount stores. There is nothing to suggest that these stores selling unique merchandise will shut down but that only the discount stores will shut down leading to vacant locations.

Does it make sense guys?

Cheers!