104. 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 fi ve 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.
我今天认真分析了一下这个题，想和大家讨论一下。因为我想通它花了点时间
首先，一看是weaken类型的题目，我就想先找出结论，因为没有结论指示词，我花了半天才找出结论是“those locations will not stay vacant for long”，而后面那句话“In the fi ve 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. ”实际上是对结论的推理，也就是解释为什么会得出结论。至此可以发现其实它是用了一个类比的方法，用五年前C的情况，类比现在G和S的情况。
这道题目我也是不理解
lz能解释一下
In the fi ve 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.
这句话中文的逻辑么
我苦恼了半天
为什么5年内C开了以来，这家新店就在所有闭店地方开新店了
而且是因为它无法compete C？
because it could not compete 这里的it到底指这家new store还是那些关门的every store呢？
ps B选项开始的increasingly也不知道算什么结构
这个选项的中文句子怎么理解呢？
问题比较白吃希望得到解答，谢谢作者: hjbb1027 时间: 2011-12-6 06:25
偷一个人的解释，有点似懂非懂，希望引NN出来看看
以下分析根据mahattan的教材：
Conclusion : The empty stores will not be vacant for long and will be occupied by some other store
Premise1: Colson's ( non-discount store ) opened and many stores closed
Premise2 : new stores opened in the place of the closed ones
From premise 1 we can assume infer that people prefer shopping at departmental stores as against other stores. (probably because they get everything they need at one place)
From this above statement we can therefore assume, people would shop at spendless as compared to other non-departmental stores.
Now to weaken the argument we must find a choice that shows that spaces will remain empty and NEW stores will NOT come up in those areas.
B is best because it shows us a reason why people left their preference of shopping at Colson's deptmental store to shop at the new stores (that came up after the old stores shut down because they couldnt compete with colson's)-
They were offered the same items for lower cost (discount stores)
now in spendless store, shoppers would get the same effect of a departmental store and also obtain the items at a lower price (it is also a discount store). Therefore there is little chance that other stores can compete with spendless作者: shlshingse 时间: 2011-12-7 06:41
