OG104题，逻辑，我想不明白啊

thumbbunny

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 non-discount 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.

thumbbunny

这个题我怎么想都想不明白，到底什么意思啊。

DUKB24

Premises： the discount stores inGoreville’s central shopping district are expected to close within five yearsas a result of competition from a SpendLess discount department store that justopenedPremises：In the five years since the opening of Colson’s, a non-discountdepartment store, a new store has opened at the
location of every store in the shopping districtthat closed because it could not compete with Colson’s.
Conclusion：those locations will not stay vacant for long



notice the method author uses to validate his argument. In order for the argument to be solid，the writer  assumes that what happened after the opening of the non-discount store is absolutely the same in the case of discount stores（This is the key to crack this question）...but if the store opened after the Colson is discount store，the validity of this assumption is being attacked..

宝爱一

http://forum.chasedream.com/GMAT_CR/thread-706618-1-1.html  我之前也错过哦~~这个解释很好~~

sally77589

这个题的结论是，这块地儿不会vacant太久，要weaken他，就是这片地儿会vacant。
前提其实是后半段话。一个nondiscount开张导致周边店（可能也是nondiscount）关闭，于是很多discount店在原来的店的地方上开张了。

但是你想啊，现在被spendless挤掉的店都是discount了，肯定不会有nondiscount店来跟discount店来竞争啊，竞争不过啊，原来的discount店也被挤掉了，那就没有店在这开张了，所以选B

thumbbunny

@宝爱一， 你给我的这个解释太好啦~我看懂啦~  嘿嘿，谢谢你们啦，你们解释的都很好。 LZ太笨啦，纠结了一晚上猜想明白