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B

题干和答案都没怎么看懂,请大家帮我看看.

以下仅供参考

题目的结果：

Stores in Goreville’s central close, because the dicount store Spendless just opened,

but new stores will open even Spendless is such a competitor

店关了因为打折的Spendless开了，但是新店会开张，门面不会空着。

原因：

some stores closed becasue the nondisount store Colson's opened,

but new store always opens at the location where the store closed.

不打折的Colson's 开装了，旁边的店关了，但是空着的门面总是给新店占了

B的意思是很多因为Spendless而关掉的店都是打折的，

既然打了折的店还是不能跟Spendless媲美，不打折的店也不能跟Colson's媲美，那谁还会来做生意赔本，当然门面会闲着罗

A 的意思是在Speedless开庄后，顾客会在Colson买少一点， （加强在Speedless旁开店的可能）

C 的意思是够物中心的店比以前多。（多店不等于没生意，削弱不了开店的可能）

D 是说人口在涨. （这个帮助不大，人口长了，钱少了，也不会买东西的）

E 的意思是很多购物中心的店卖的东西与C and S 不同。（这个答案看来有点像答案，但B 更有逻辑）

楼主的解释值得商榷

首先对B的翻译就是不准确的。B应该解释为在C开张后,倒掉店面都被折扣店占据了。跟Spendless无关

整个题目是个错误类比的例子，论据是C（非折扣店）把旁边店挤垮了，但又有新店冲上来。用以证明在ｓｐｅｎｄｌｅｓｓ挤垮其它店后还有新店冲上来。B答案提出了，指出了两个情况最大的不同，就是C挤垮了的店面是被折扣店重新占据并开业的。这就告诉我们，不是哪个店空了都可以有人补上的，要看跟谁竞争。原来C是非折扣店，所以旁边有铺位后折扣店补进去。（因为折扣店有优势），而现在的情况是ｓｐｅｎｄｌｅｓｓ本身就是折扣店，他旁边空出来的新店就不会有那么多折扣店补上来了。很可能空着，WEAKEN。

agree B:

nondiscount colson open -> nondiscount store set A close -> new store set B open

discount SpendLess open -> discount store set C close

B: means B is almost C, so now hardly any type of store can open since competition both from nondiscount colson and discount SpendLess. So weaken conclusion some other new store will open.

E is irrelevant since only talk about discoutnt stores which will close by SpendLess. The store sell different stuff and will not open is not discussed.

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.

我觉得就是文中说 廉价商店在S开张后就close了.但是店面又不长期空着的, C是一个 nondiscount 的商店,所以倒掉的店是因为他们无法与S竞争,才关的,而不是因为不能与C竞争. 因为前文说的是discount店的比较而不是说nondiscount与discount的比较.

开始我也做错了,最后还是想明白了.

Premises: 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.

Conclusion: those locations will not stay vacant for long.

Department store are larger than the (small) stores, such as Wal-Mart

The premises argue the advantage that the new store is opened despite the failure of preexisting stores in competition with the department store. In this case it must follow the example that, although all the existing stores will be closed in five years, new stores will still be open thereafter. So, both scenarios will be the same.

However, the argument can be weaken by present a condition that is not the same for both case, that is, one scenario is more favorable to the other. How that might be?

The condition for premises illustrate the competition from the large department store with small stores, answer B says those new stores are discount store, therefore, although they are disadvantage in size, they have advantage in price, because the large department store is non-discount store.

However,, in the scenario the author argues, if there were new stores to be open thereafter, they would face the competition from the large department “discount store”, from which they would gain no advantage.

In conclusion, the competing scenarios and the incentives for the new store opening are different, therefore, the argument is weakened.

点击此链接看示意图

椭圆形图示意了该地方各stores的可能生存状态。

Premise：

由于今年S开张，所以未来5年，凡是Ds都要关门，也即S挤压了他们的生存空间

Conclusion:

但是，这些因为S的挤压而关闭的店会换新店重新开张(these vacancies won't stay long)

结论依据=>Argument:

过去5年，也即S还没有开张前的5年，只有C是一直生存到现在的，其他locations的店都是因为C的竞争而倒闭，然后新店在原位置开张的。

Assumption：

既然如此，以后5年也一样，那些location会有店重新开张的。

My reasoning:

B：过去5年，新开张的店都是Ds，和C比虽然scale小，但是有price advantage，所以得以生存；

也即原先的都是~Ds，被C竞争垮了=>有C在，~Ds都不可能生存

但是未来5年就不一样了，S开张了=>有S在，其他Ds都不可能生存

S会因为相较于C的price advantage继续生存, ceteris paribus

所以未来，这个地方只有C和S=>those vacancies won't be filled.

thus weakend