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

那位大虾愿意帮忙解释一下？

D 这是削弱题,作者的原因为because it could not compete with Colson’s.这要削弱原因即可..D说它因 .

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.