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.

I have no idea about answer B.  Appreciation for help

It was discussed before. Please check for the links.

顶,同问,没搜到以前的讨论帖

不太明白题目什么意思

讨论过

你仔细画画图 就知道了

这个破题讨论的范围是不一样的

题里面反复的暗示

打折店，不打折店

终于找到一个逻辑高手,问明白了.

题目的结论是:今后，those locations will not stay vacant for long.由于有SpendLess discount 竞争。

论据是：以前Colson’s开业后， 不断有新店开。a new store has opened at the location。

要削弱题中的论证。

就是 those locations will stay vacant for long。

B.由于和Colson’竞争倒闭的店的店位上新开的是打折店，而Colson’是非打折店，所以不构成竞争。但是现在SpendLess disc是个打折店，所以构成竞争，所以those locations will stay vacant for long。

E会推出与题中一样的结论those locations will not stay vacant for long，因为Colson‘和SpendLess discount 都不竞争。