The recent upheaval in the office-equipment retail

business, in which many small firms have gone out

of business, has been attributed to the advent of

office equipment “superstores” whose high sales

volume keeps their prices low. This analysis is

flawed, however, since even today the superstores

control a very small share of the retail market.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken

the argument that the analysis is flawed?

(A) Most of the larger customers for office

equipment purchase under contract directly

from manufacturers and thus do not participate

in the retail market.

(B) The superstores’ heavy advertising of their low

prices has forced prices down throughout the

retail market for office supplies.

(C) Some of the superstores that only recently

opened have themselves gone out of business.

(D) Most of the office equipment superstores are

owned by large retailing chains that also own

stores selling other types of goods.

(E) The growing importance of computers in most

offices has changed the kind of office

equipment retailers must stock.

答案是B。但我感觉是不是应该是D。问题问的是“most weaken

the argument that the analysis is flawed?“。他的argument是什么呢？

”。。。。since even today the superstores

control a very small share of the retail market.“。答案是不是应该针对这个进行反驳？

I prefer B

Although superstores control a small share, but their ads can impact the whole retail industry.

他因削弱。

原论证是：这些大店占市场份额不大推出不会导致其他小店关门。

b是他因。