[求助]请教一题,看不明白,多谢

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.

请注明题号。谢谢合作哈：）

感觉这道题好怪啊,LZ公布答案吧

是选E吗?不过这样是不是叫否定前提??

我选B.

大家可以讨论一下.

我理解是这样,结论是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就是说每个店铺都因为竞争不过C而重新开过了,B说自从C开张后,这些地方开的都是折扣店,那意思就是和C这个非折扣店没有竞争关系,所以不能下结论说因为C的竞争每家都重新开过了。

但是我实在搞不懂:首先，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.是想交代个什么意思?是个背景吗? 其次,这个题目到底weaken什么,是削弱because it could not compete with Colson's还是削弱a new store has opened at the location of every store in the shopping district

请牛人帮忙

我认为这道题目的逻辑是这样的.第一句话是conclusion,即想证明those locations will not stay vacant for long.第二句话是用来support conclusion的.它给出了一个evidence,即Colson开张的时候,许多店竞争不过它都倒闭了,但是这些地方都没有vacant,而是有了新的store.这样通过类比证明第一句话,竞争不过Spendless的店倒闭后,那些location同样不会vacant.

所以,我觉得要weaken的也应该是conclusion,即那些location不会vacant.

不知道这样理解对不对,请指点

but ur line of reasoning does not include the concept of "discount" or "non-discount", i think it is critical for the issue.