对OG12，104的一些自己的分析和看法

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

我今天认真分析了一下这个题，想和大家讨论一下。因为我想通它花了点时间
首先，一看是weaken类型的题目，我就想先找出结论，因为没有结论指示词，我花了半天才找出结论是“those locations will not stay vacant for long”，而后面那句话“In the ? 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. ”实际上是对结论的推理，也就是解释为什么会得出结论。至此可以发现其实它是用了一个类比的方法，用五年前C的情况，类比现在G和S的情况。

好了，题目搞明白了，我开始用lawyer关于WEAKEN类问题的方法进行解答，lawyer说在找出结论后，要注意结论的具体性，我们可以看到，结论的情况实际上是在说两个“discount”的商店，而理由部分的C商店的情况是“NONdiscount”的，注意到这个特殊性之后我就得出了B


也不知道分析的方法对不对，想和大家讨论下，我觉得这道题蛮麻烦的。

偷一个人的解释，有点似懂非懂，希望引NN出来看看
以下分析根据mahattan的教材：
Conclusion : The empty stores will not be vacant for long and will be occupied by some other store

Premise1: Colson's ( non-discount store ) opened and many stores closed
Premise2 : new stores opened in the place of the closed ones

From premise 1 we can assume infer that people prefer shopping at departmental stores as against other stores. (probably because they get everything they need at one place)

From this above statement we can therefore assume, people would shop at spendless as compared to other non-departmental stores.

Now to weaken the argument we must find a choice that shows that spaces will remain empty and NEW stores will NOT come up in those areas.

B is best because it shows us a reason why people left their preference of shopping at Colson's deptmental store to shop at the new stores (that came up after the old stores shut down because they couldnt compete with colson's)-
They were offered the same items for lower cost (discount stores)

now in spendless store, shoppers would get the same effect ofa departmental storeand also obtain the items at a lower price(it is also a discount store). Therefore there is little chance that other stores can compete with spendless