Although the discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district

mikemcgarry, can you please explain this question in detail. Even the argument is NOT clear to me. I tried many times but failed.

There is actually a town called Goreville with about 1,000 people in Illinois! I don't think that there are many discount stores left in downtown Goreville, but I hear that there's a pretty good Mexican restaurant, with great enchiladas rancheros. But the GMAT probably doesn't care about Mexican food, so let's focus on this stinking passage:

The conclusion is that when the discount stores in Goreville close due to competition with SpendLess, their locations will not stay vacant for long (in other words, those locations will be filled by new stores or something else).

The author then presents evidence supporting that conclusion. When Colson's opened, some stores (we don't know how many) closed because they could not compete with Colson's. Within five years, a new store opened at the location of each of the closed stores.

Based on the Colson's example, the author argues that the same thing will happen when SpendLess opens. But are these two examples comparable? Is the evidence based on Colson's, a nondiscount department store, relevant to a discount department store like SpendLess? Can the conclusion be properly be drawn based on that evidence?

We need to find an answer choice that weakens the author's argument:

This doesn't tell us anything about the stores that will close due to competition with SpendLess. Will their locations remain vacant? Choice (A) doesn't give us any indication either way, so it can be eliminated.

After Colson's opened, the vacant locations became discount stores that did not have to compete with Colson's (since Colson's is a nondiscount store). But now we have both a discount department store AND a nondiscount department store. So when the stores competing with SpendLess close, they can't be easily replaced with nondiscount stores (since we already have a Colson's that drove such stores out of business).

This information is evidence that it will be more difficult to fill the new vacancies than it was after Colson's opened. This weakens the author's argument, so keep (B).

This does not tell us what will happen when several of the discount stores close because of competition with SpendLess. Will those vacancies be filled? Choice (C) doesn't strengthen or weaken the author's argument, so it can be eliminated.

This might actually strengthen the author's argument. If there are more people, there might be a demand for more stores. That might make it easier to fill the vacancies. Regardless, this certainly doesn't weaken the author's argument, so (D) can be eliminated.

All we know is that the discount stores that compete with SpendLess are going to close, and we need information suggesting that those vacancies will or will not stay vacant for long. Choice (E) just tells us that Goreville has a variety of other stores. Perhaps if we were told that there was a demand for MORE of those types of stores then we could argue that the vacancies could be filled with stores that sell such merchandise (strengthening the argument). As is, choice (E) does not suggest whether the vacancies will be filled, so (E) can be eliminated.

Choice (B) is the best answer.