gwd31-4-7,请教思路,火烧眉毛了都

Q7:

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?

1. Many customers of Colson’s are expected to do less shopping there than they did before the SpendLess store opened.
2. Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since Colson’s opened have been discount stores.
3. At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as it ever had.
4. 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.
5. Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are not available at either SpendLess or Colson’s.

In fact, 我题目看不明白,请各位指教

this augument uses an analogism to prove the to prove the conclustion that " those locations will not stay vacant for long". since the SpendLess discount department and the Colson's, the two stores have some similarities. The only work to do to weaken the argument is to find out the difference between the two so that the continuing set-up of stores in the shopping district because they cannot compete with Colson's does not prove the not-long-vacant locations after the close of discount stores.

I think Choice A is the right answer since the set-up of SpendLess store influences the number of  customers that visit Colson's which means the conditions of Spendless and Colson's are not the same, and seriously weakens the argument.

谢谢K,此题答案选B

a new store has opened at the location of every store in the shopping district that closed 这句怎么理解呢

 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.

自从Colson开业5年来，【Colson是一家不打折的商店】，一家新的商店开在了一个（比较晦气的）地方，这个地方的购物区里所有的商店都因为不能和Colson竞争都关门了。

问weaken

文章告诉你Colson是不打折的商店，得出结论是全部商店都是因为不能和Colson竞争才关的门，意思都是不打折的商店在和Colson竞争，所以都关门。但是如果开出来的商店是【打折商店】vs【Colson不打折商店】的话，结论就有问题了

B：Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since Colson’s opened have been discount stores.自从Colson开业后开张的商店是打折商店，weaken了结论

there is one more question

how do you know discount stores cannot compete with non-discount stores and the stores competed with Colson must be non-discount store just because Colson is a non-discount store.

another question, what's wrong with A

thanks NNs

题目里有一个背景信息

【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.  】从这里面能看出什么呢？the discount stores 和SpendLess discount department store这样一家一样性质的商店竞争的时候呢，都关门了。可见呢，相通性质的商店之间的竞争呢，deparement store是占绝对优势的。

然后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.这样一个结论。通过背景信息，我们知道，如果都是不打折商店和Colson竞争的话是结论肯定的。但是如果是错位竞争，结论是否成立就两说了。所以weaken了。

至于错位竞争谁胜利，题目没说。这样也就是一个gap被抓到了。商店关门的前提是相通性质的商店之间的竞争，如果这个前提被question，结论就被weaken。

－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－

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

这是个无关的选项，文章没有提及消费者如何消费。况且Colson’s 和SpendLess 是两个性质完全不同的商店。所以A不会是一个答案。