B. The logic in the stimuli contains a faulty analogy: Colson's opened, stores that competed with Colson's closed, new stores opened => same will happen after Spendless opens. However, Colson's is a non-discount store; stores closed afterwards competed directly with Colson's, stored opened in their places are discount stores (i.e., they don't compete with Colson's directly). SpendLess is a discount store, for any store opened afterwards, if it is a discount store, it will have to compete directly with SpendLess; if it is a non-discount store, it will have to compete directly with Colson's. Therefore, the analogy is false, the conclusion from the analogy cannot be properly drawn. |