又问gwd-4-7

nina_nn

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

答案是b，

看以前的讨论贴发现解释中出现两种说法，不一样,但都有点道理...

在讨论一下吧~~~

shiguang

我的中文翻译是：

虽然在G中心的购物地区的打折商店预计在五年内在和新开的具有SpendLess discount 特点商店竞争中倒闭，但这个地区不会保持空白很久（不会没有新的商店）。 自从Colson’s商店开业的未来5年内，一个新开的不打折的商店会在因为与Colson’s的商店竞争而倒闭的商店原址建立起来。

（原来打折的商店在和不打折的商店竞争中失败倒闭，新的不打折的商店在倒闭的打折店的位置建立）

结论是those locations will not stay vacant for long     削弱的是原文认为是打折导致了一些商店的倒闭，而B说新建的商店都是打折店，也就是说在不久的将来还会倒闭，也就不能保证those locations will not stay vacant for long  

你要是明白了就回帖 不懂也告诉我  我的语文不是很好 希望你能懂我所解释的

shiguang

续上面

这个题有点绕  原文给出个假设：打折店会倒闭 

       原文又给出个CONCLUSION   :  这个地区的商店不会因倒闭消失

B说新建的商店都是打折店 ，也就是会倒闭，消弱了结论：这个地区不会因为商店倒闭而空白

nina_nn

真的好绕哦...不过懂了~~谢谢啦