Q36: TTGWD4-Q7:

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?

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.

答案是B，请大家看看，谢谢

我觉得argument好像是those locations will not stay vacant for long。想要weaken 它就是说这些locations要vacant。如A说的，去C的顾客不如以前那么经常光顾了，那么C就做不下去了，自然要关店走人了，那么locations就有vacant了。。。。所以我想选A。

不知道有没有其他N人解释一下呢？

我今天也做到这题，很迷茫。
我觉得A 不对是因为比较的是过去和现在的购物人数，irrelevant.

我徘徊在E和B中。
我的理解是argument说的是Colson's会在其他竞争失败而关闭的店位上开新店。
要weaken上面的argument：
B是说折扣店与Colson's非折扣店是不同的，所以不会把店位都让给Colson's。
E是说货品种类不同，所以店位也不会都给Colson's。
这么看来，B说得相当隐讳，似乎E更weaken一点吧？？？
希望牛人指点。。。。