Why are we considering that the new stores to occupy the space will be the discount stores...it can be non-discount as well.

Hi everyone

Although the discount stores in Goreville 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?

Pre-thinking
The author reasoning is based on a comparison. Right now a SpendLess store is going to open and the prediction is that all the shops around will close and be replaced by other shops.
This reasoning is justified because apparently something similar happened before when Colson opened, obliging the other stores to close because of the competition. Plus afterwards new shops came in at the location of the closed ones.

In order to weaken the author's reasoning we need to weaken this comparison. If we are given an answer choice suggesting that the two scenarios presented are substantially different in someways then the argument would fall into pieces.
For example let's analyze the second scenario. Colson is a Non discount store and the new stores that opened afterwards were all discounts stores in order for them to compete with it. But SpendLess is a discount store and the same condition may not be applied.

(A) Many customers of Colson's are expected to do less shopping there than they did before the SpendLess store opened.
This choice means that SpendLess will drive away customers from Colson but we are concerned with all the other stores that will close and will be replaced. Hence incorrect

(B) Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since Colson's opened have been discount stores.
This is a substantial difference between Colson's situation and Spendless'. Hence correct

(C) At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as it ever had.
# of stores operating in the district is irrelevant to the argument since we are concerned with the shops that will close and with the ones that will reopen. Hence incorrect

(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.
Population growth is irrelevant to the argument. Hence incorrect

(E) Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are not available at either SpendLess or Colson's.
We are given that many shops are expected to close because of the competition. So let's say that many stores sell something that C or S don't sell. Are these items bestsellers influencing most of the profits of these stores or are these items almost irrelevant to the overall profits of the stores?
Note that in the first case the argument would be weakened because it would be likely that these store would remain opened. But in the second case these shops will close anyhow because of the competition. Hence incorrect

it's a good day to be alive, cheers!

Dear VeritasKarishma GMATGuruNY IanStewart MartyTargetTestPrep AtlanticGMAT AjiteshArun GMATNinjaTwo

I know why choice B. is right. But I would like to have solid grounds in rejecting wrong answer choices.

Q1. Why is choice A. wrong? (There is not much explanation in every source I can find)

(A) Many customers of Colson's are expected to do less shopping there than they did before the SpendLess store opened.

This implies that with the arrival of SpendLess, even the customers of Colson's switch their shopping to SpendLess, not the mention small stores in central shopping district! SpendLess can attract a lot of customers.

Therefore, we would not expect new stores to open in to-be-vacant area, right? Choice A. suggests even Colson's cannot compete with SpendLess.

Q2. If choice E. specifies that many stores in the central shopping district that sell types of merchandise not available at either SpendLess or Colson's are AMONG the stores that WILL BE CLOSED, then choice E. will be a contender for this question, right? Although those stores capture different segments, they are expected to be closed. Hence, less hope for reopening new stores in place of the closed stores.
_________________

Hey, vasuca10 - happy to chat through this one! (varotkorn, I know this is a bit delayed - but hopefully this addresses your question as well!)



Here, we're looking to break up the connection between the evidence/premise:

"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."

and its corresponding conclusion:

"those locations will not stay vacant for long." (referring to the new vacancies expected to open because of SpendLess.)

So, we want something that addresses the gap between "in the past, a new store has opened in any location closed by the competition of Colson's, a non-discount store" and "the same will be true for the stores closed as a result of competition from SpendLess."

Already... the gap should start to become clear. Just because this happened in the past with the introduction of a non-discount store... doesn't necessarily mean it will happen now with the introduction of a discount store. The argument has conflated two different scenarios that won't necessarily react the same way.

Let's find an answer that addresses that gap:




Even if this is true, it doesn't address why the fact that vacant stores were quickly replaced in the past doesn't necessarily tell us the same will happen now. It perhaps gives us reason to believe SpendLess could grab some of Colson's customer base.. but this doesn't inherently tell us the vacant storefronts *won't* be filled/that there won't be other stores that have the opportunity to compete.



Hmm... if the stores replacing the ones that were chased out by Colson's aren't direct competition with Colson's, and are able to compete because they sell items at a discount.. this gives us pretty good reason to believe the same scenario might not be expected now that SpendLess has come into town. (How are these new potential storefronts supposed to compete and differentiate themselves if there are already both competitive discount and non-discount stores around?) We're looking for something that tells us "what was true of the past scenario might not be true of the current one," and (B) does just that! So, we'll want to leave this one in the running while we analyze our other options.



The number of current stores doesn't matter to us at all. If the argument tells us they're expected to close, we're concerned with whether they're likely to be quickly replaced just because in the past, that's what happened. This answer gives us no reason to believe that just because they were replaced last time, we can't necessarily say they will be in this scenario, so this one's out!



This has no impact on whether new stores could replace expected future vacancies and compete with SpendLess, and more specifically, whether it makes sense to use our past example to conclude so. This one's definitely out. *If anything* - if demand for products in general is going up, we have more reason to believe other stores might survive - and that's the opposite of what we're looking for!



Again, this does not address why it might not make sense to use the past example with Colson's to draw the same conclusion for the storefronts potentially replacing the vacancies left by the competition of SpendLess. If anything, the fact that the current stores sell unique products would have given us good reason to believe that they could remain competitive (though we're already told they're predicted to close) or at the very least, that other stores with unique offerings could replace them. So, if we're looking for a way this answer choice impacts the argument, if anything - it strengthens the conclusion (though the connection between evidence and conclusion remains relatively un-impacted as it stands).

So, if we want something that specifically tells us "just because this happened in the past with Colson's doesn't mean it is expected to happen again with SpendLess," (B) does exactly that! If the stores that were able to replace vacancies and remain competitive did so because they were discount stores, this gives us great reason to believe that SpendLess will prevent a similar replacement from happening this time around.

It sounds like in both of your cases, you were focused too exclusively on "will SpendLess knock out all of the competition?" rather than breaking up the connection between the past example and its potential current explanation. Keep in mind, when we strengthen or weaken an argument, we aren't trying to strengthen just the conclusion "in a vacuum." We're looking to address the gap in logic between evidence and conclusion (and the assumption underlying that gap) to either expose (weaken) or bridge (strengthen) that gap.

I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any other questions!
_________________

Great question!

So, to clarify, answer (E) as it stands would not be a good candidate for a "strengthen" question either. While it might *otherwise* be helpful to the argument to make the case that stores with different product offerings could be competitive - like you mentioned - we're already told the existing stores are predicted to close. So, this might be helpful if it were applied to the new stores, but as it stands, it isn't super helpful either way. Additionally, it fails to address the connection between evidence and conclusion entirely (in either respect), as it does not in any way address why the previous case with Colson's should not be used to conclude that "the same will happen with the current situation."

While I see where you're coming from - the unique vs. standard nature of the offered products doesn't address the *connection* between evidence and conclusion, even if we attempt to look to hypotheticals or the application to the closed vs. new potential establishments.

I hope this clarifies!
_________________

(A) Many customers of Colson's are expected to do less shopping there than they did before the SpendLess store opened.
Customer shopping is not related whether shops would open or not


(B) Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since Colson's opened have been discount stores.
1B/1A not same condition :
Non discount is colson ; and new open are discount stores
Spendless is discount store,
See the pictures:
1st multiple non-discount stores came then Colson came which was non –discount and made closed multiple non-discount stores due to competition
then came discount stores in different stream to thrive, then spendless discount came then it will kill all existing discount stores,,what would happen next?
What kind of new stores can come as market has already discount and non –discount stores.

(C) At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as it ever had.
>>it doesn’t answer our question that whether new locations would not be empty

(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.
Like A, it doesn’t matter to consumers increase

(E) Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are not available at either SpendLess or Colson's
>> it doesn’t tell me whether these stores are new ones, old ones or closed ones?
Without this information it is hard to conclude