[求助] OG12 104题

104.  Although the discount stores in Goreville’s central shopping district are expected to close within fi ve 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 fi ve 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 fi ve 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.

恳请知道的解答下，实在不解！

菜鸟飘过...

感觉像是A~ 不知道对不对~

选B吧！题目是说折扣店由于S得开张，竞争不过而会在五年内关门，结论：但是这些关掉的location会马上被别的店面填补。依据是，在五年里，由于C的开张而倒闭的店面，会马上开出一家新店来。这样类别，得出了和S竞争倒闭的店面也会马上开除新店的结论。

B：说以前开在和C竞争而倒闭的店面的商店，都是折扣店，因为C是非折扣店，所以新开的折扣店还是有可能生存下来的。但现在的情况却大不相同。那些关门的店本来就是折扣店，但他们是由于竞争不过比折扣店更有价格优势的S店儿倒闭的。那么这些空门面，未必会马上有新店开出来，肯能会空很久。

以上是我的理解~~~

我的意思就是作者是拿C店的例子作为依据，来得出S店附近的新店面不久就会重新开张这么一个结论。B削弱的依据是，C周围重新开张的是折扣店，由于C不是折扣店，所以ok，有价格优势，再开没问题。但现在的情况却不一样，S是比折扣店更有价格优势的spendless discount店，而且他周围倒闭的本来就是折扣店，因此店面未必就会马上有新的开出来，削弱了~~~呵呵，可能我的表达不是很清楚吧！让楼上的迷惑了！

这题按lawyer的划分其实就是weaken里面的类比问题，要weaken 它就要指出类比的两件事物有本质的区别。作者用C（C是非折扣店）周围因为竞争倒闭的商场又有新店进驻，来支持他的观点：S（S是折扣店）周围开的店面因为竞争被迫撤走后还会有新的店进驻的。关键就是C与S的区别。他用C的例子作为参照物给S下结论，但是这两者是有区别的，所以S的结论不成立，这就是weaken.

翻了好几个帖子，越看越晕。 哎。。。。。。。。。。

我说下我的理解，一条街，因为S开了，所以打折店在将来5年里都将要关闭。

还是这条街，一家新店开张了，位置就在一家由于竞争不过C而倒闭的店的旧址，自从C（不打折的店）开张了。

两部分内容完全是风马牛不相及，我门要weaken啥内容？