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

I got this wrong, so i'm typing out a response to better articulate my train of thinking and for analysis:

Conclusion: Discount stores in Gville's shopping district are expected to close within 5 years as a result of competition from SpendLess these won't be vacant for long
p1: in the 5 years since Colsons (non-discount shop) opened, a new store has opened at every location across shops that had closed because they couldn't compete with Colsons

(A) Many customers of Colson's are expected to do less shopping there than they did before the SpendLess store opened.
The fact that some customers will churn to SpendLess (as implied) does not weaken the conclusion that the stores that close down won't be vacant for long.

(B) Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since Colson's opened have been discount stores.
Initially marked another answer right, but here's my current understanding of why B is right.

Previously, stores have closed down because a new entrant, Colsons, arrived on the block. This may be because they couldn't compete on either product mix/ price or both. The argument assumes that SpendLess' opening is predicted to drive out even more stores, but those emptied stores are expected be occupied really quickly by new tenants, who are presumably more competitive and meet consumer's needs.

Statement (B) weakens the argument because it attacks the assumption made by the author: that existing stores won't be able to compete with Spendless. So, there's no need to even suggest that vacancies will matter.

(C) At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as it ever had.
The number of stores present within the shop does not weaken the conclusion. This fact is not relevant to the argument.

(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.
The population growth is a completely new fact that neither weakens/ strengthens/ neutralises the argument.

(E) Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are not available at either SpendLess or Colson's.
I initially selected this answer choice (hence why i'm writing) because I presumed that the other stores, presumed by the author to close down, would be able to compete by product differentiation and so price was irrelevant. After reading the explanation I see that this is incorrect and neither strengthens/ weakens as this answer choice doesn't indicate whether the "many stores" are among those stores expected to close as a result of SpendLess stepping on the block.
_________________

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!

Stimuli: new stores opened at stores closed due to Colson's competition in past 5 years -> new stores will open at stores closed due to SpendLess's competition in the next 5 years

Question: weaken - try to approve new stores will not open to replace closed ones

Answers:
A) this does mention anything about "whether new store will open to replace"
B) correct answer. since all reopened stores are discount stores, and SpendLess is going to kick them out of game so no information from the stimuli can prove new stores definitely replace.
C) current number of stores doesn't matter
D) population grows might mean more buying power, but no info is given to indicate "whether new store will open to replace old ones"
E) this might mean SpendLess and Colson's business might be impacted but in no way indicates how new store will replace

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.
_________________

VeritasPrepHailey mam please explain this question in details with POE as I am getting confused in understanding

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!
_________________

Dear VeritasPrepHailey,

Thank you for your response
I don't understand the highlighted part.

If the closing stores sell unique goods, how can this fact strengthen the argument that other stores will fill the closing stores?

Even if those stores sell distinct products, they are still doomed to be closed. How this leads us to believe that there will be hope for new stores to compete with SpendLess?

If anything, choice E. should weaken the argument since it eliminates the possibility that new stores can compete with SpendLess through unique products.

Please clarify Ma'am
_________________

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!
_________________

Thank you so much mam for such a detailed explanation along with POE.....The explanation is lucid and now the question is crystal clear to me along with the explanation and missing link

(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

A student asked me to comment on the differences between answer choices A and B.

Before that, however, I'd like to note that Goreville would be a great name for a city in a horror movie.


Argument summary: This analogy argument goes something like this:
All the discount stores will close 5 years after the opening of the mighty SpendLess discount store
Conclusion: Don't worry. Those locations (where all the bankrupt discount stores used to be) won't stay vacant for long
Rationale for conclusion: A similar thing happened a while back. Colson's (a regular/nondiscount department store) came into town, causing its competitors (also regular/nondiscount stores) to close shop. Fortunately, all of those locations were filled by other/new stores. So the same thing should happen with the SpendLess scenario.

(A) Many customers of Colson's are expected to do less shopping there than they did before the SpendLess store opened.
This has no effect on the conclusion that the locations (where all the bankrupt discount stores used to be) won't stay vacant for long
All we know is that Colson's will likely generate less revenue than it did it before SpendLess arrived.

(B) Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since Colson's opened have been discount stores.
This seriously damages the strength of the analogy between the two scenarios: the SpendLess story and the Colson's story.
In this new story, we learn that Colson's competitors were replaced with discount stores.
So, now we're saying Don't worry. The vacant locations (caused by the SpendLess' arrival) won't stay vacant for long, because they'll soon be filled by . . . discount stores.
Wait! We already know that they can't be filled by discount stores, because the mighty SpendLess destroys all other discount stores.\

Answer: B
_________________

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?

P : Locations where stores failed to compete Colson's, a nondiscount store, has filled up quickly.
C : Vacant locations where discount stores have closed will not be vacant for long

Possible Weakener? Any argument telling that situation is different, implying there is no store which can replace a discount store will weaken the argument.


(A) Many customers of Colson's are expected to do less shopping there than they did before the SpendLess store opened.
-> This option only implies that the possibility for Colson to collapse will increase and does not give any information why such locations will not be filled.

(B) Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since Colson's opened have been discount stores.
-> Correct, Colson, which was a nondiscount store, have made competitors to open discount store. This option implies that the situation is different. In the past, new discount stores have opened to compete with nondiscount stores. However discount stores cannot open to compete discount store now.

(C) At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as it ever had.
-> Irrelevant, amount of stores currently operating has nothing to do in weakening the conclusion.

(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.
-> This option rather supports the conclusion than weakens it.

(E) Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are not available at either SpendLess or Colson's.
-> This option talks about current stores operating in the district not new stores that are to come.

I. Let's first define the author's line of reasoning:
Premise (given): Colson (a non-discount store) opened -> stores closed -> other stores filled the vacancies.
Conclusion: SpendLess (discount store) opened -> discount stores closed -> other stores will fill the vacancies that these closed discount stores left.
There is no connection between the case of Colson and Spendless. The reasoning is a pure analogy. To weaken an analogy, we must show the dissimilarity. The conclusion is already weak because of the lack of similarity.

II. Look at B: The stores that filled up the vacancies is discount stores.
Premise: Colson (a non-discount store) opened ->stores closed -> other discount stores filled the vacancies.
Using analogical reasoning the Conclusion is weaken: SpendLess (discount store) opened -> discount stores close -> other discount stores filled the vacancies.
-->The new stores are also discount stores, the closed stores are also the discount stores (implausible)

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?


(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.

Quite a tricky one. Nevertheless, let’s try to understand the stimulus.

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

Opinion/ Conclusion-

But,
those locations will not stay vacant for long.


Because (Reasoning)-

After the opening of Colson’s, a nondiscount store, several other stores closed because it could not compete with Colson’s. (Colson’s competitors- also nondiscount stores)
But in the five years since the opening of Colson’s, a new store has opened at the location of every store in the shopping district that closed

Question- weaken the argument

We need to find an option that weakens the conclusion that Goreville central shopping district won’t stay vacant for long.

Or that it will be occupied.

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

This does not impact the conclusion. Eliminate

(B) Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since Colson's opened have been discount stores.

Colson’s- non discount store
The ones that closed- non discount store
New stores- discount store

SpendLess, that just opened - discount store
The stores that are expected to close- discount stores

Option B reduces the probability of those locations (Goreville central shopping district) getting occupied by new stores.

How?

When Colson’s opened, it hit the stores that it was in competition with. (nondiscount stores)

SpendLess is a discount store- it will hit the stores that it is in competition with (discount stores)

If the new stores that replaced nondiscount stores are discount stores, how will it compete with SpendLess, which is already a discount store? Moreover, the premise says that the discount stores in Goreville central shopping district are expected to close within five years as a result of competition from SpendLess discount department store. This weakens the possibility of Goreville central shopping district getting occupied by new stores. Correct.

(C) At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as it ever had.

The conclusion is that Goreville central shopping district won’t stay vacant for long even if other stores close within the next five years. Option C simply states that at present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as it ever had.
This does not impact our conclusion on whether Goreville central shopping district will stay vacant for long if other stores close within the next five years. Eliminate

(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.

The rise in population cannot be equated with new stores replacing the closed ones/Goreville central shopping district getting occupied by new stores
Eliminate

(E) Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are not available at either SpendLess or Colson’s.

What type of merchandise they sell is beyond the scope of the argument. The argument sticks to stores opening and closing because of competition. Eliminate.

Vishnupriya
GMAT Verbal SME
_________________