Although the discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district

B.

Here is the argument:
Colson eliminate all competitors, but competitors came back and fill up the space. Spendless also eliminate all competitors, and like Colson case, competitors will come back.

B validates that all the competitors that came back in Colson case are DISCOUNTED stores. This means that the competition came back because they can now compete by offering less price. However, this is different from SpendLess. Spendless is a discount store and competitors will not come back for the same reason as Colson case; thus, this weakens the argument.

This is a hard question. I would say that Vercules gave an excellent explanation above.

Fact = new SpendLess discount department store (i.e. Walmart) has opened
Fact = as a result, the discount stores in Goreville’s central shopping district are expected to close within five years

Conclusion ---- "those locations will not stay vacant for long"

This is an argument by analogy
SpendLess: downtown discount stores :: Colson’s: downtown nondiscount stores
The author essentially says --- since the Colson's situation is like the SpendLess situation, we will see the same result --- storefronts won't stay empty for long. We are asked to weaken this argument.

The way to weaken an argument by analogy is to show that it's not a good analogy, i.e. that there's some crucial difference that separates the two situations.

Let's think about these situations more carefully:
SITUATION #1 (factual)
(a) at the start, lots of nondiscount stores downtown
(b) then Colson's opens, competes with them
(c) nondiscount stores downtown start to close
(d) BUT, other stores take their place
SITUATION #2 (part factual, part predicted)
(a) at the start, lots of discount stores downtown (fact)
(b) then SpendLess opens, competes with them (fact)
(c) discount stores downtown start to close (confident expectation)
(d) BUT, other store will take their place (author's conclusion)

The problem lies in step (d) --- what other stores took over the empty storefront?

IF, in Scenario #1, some nondiscount stores that couldn't compete with Colson's moved out, but other nondiscount stores were able to figure out how to compete with Colson's and moved in, more stores of the same niche, then that would strengthen the argument by analogy, that other discount stores will figure out how to compete with SpendLess in its niche and successfully take the place of the discount stores that close.

BUT IF, in Scenario #1, after the nondiscount store that couldn't compete with Colson's moved out, discount stores moved into those spaces --- well, discount store are a different niche, not necessarily direct competitors of something like Colson's. Furthermore, in economically challenging times, discounts stores will always have an edge over non-discount stores. This explains why new stores, stores of a difference niche, could occupy those empty store fronts in Scenario #1. BUT, the situation now looks very different in scenario #2 --- if the discount stores are being forced out of business by SpendLess, what on earth is going to take their place? That is, if discount stores have an advantage vis-a-vis nondiscount stores, what kind of stores have a similar advantage vis-a-vis discount stores? There really isn't anything like that. Therefore, the analogy is not good, and contrary to the author of the argument, we can't expect the storefronts that will become vacant downtown to fill anytime soon.

Choice (B) goes to the heart of this --- it let's us know that the stores that replaced Colson's unsuccessful competitors were not more non-discount stores, stores in that same category, but discount store --- a switch to a more advantageous category. Economically, that's a one-trick-pony --- you can't "one up" the category of stores again.

The other answers are tempting but not correct. For example, (E) tries to call into question the evidence --- never a successful strategy. We know Colson's competitors closed, regardless of whether they sold items not available at Colsons. That's fact. According to the argument, we expect SpendLess's discount story competitors also to close --- again, regardless of what unique discount trinkets they sell. Apparently, this is an irrelevant point --- regardless of what they sell, these smaller competitor stores will close. The evidence presented in the argument is true --- you never gain ground on GMAT CR "weaken" questions by calling the evidence into question.

Finally, one thing that makes this argument much easier to interpret is knowing the real-world reference. The chain Walmart (called here "SpendLess") has decimated downtown shopping districts by the thousand across America. This argument is very much about this all-too-common scenario. GMAT CR arguments often draw on real world situations, especially in the business world ----- if you are planning to take the GMAT and get an MBA, you absolutely have to be up-to-date with the economic news. This will give you an enormous advantage in the GMAT CR.

This post .....
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/reading-fo ... economist/
... talks about how reading The Economist can help you with GMAT RC, but it can also help with CR. In fact, the writing quality is very high, so it provides an excellent example of grammar for the GMAT SC as well!

Does all this make sense?

Mike

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

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!

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

Passage analysis
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.

The prediction:
The discount stores in Goreville’s central shopping area are going to close within five years.
This will happen because these stores cannot face the competition put up by Spendless discount department store.
This store has just opened in the same area.
We can infer that the other discount stores will not be able to put up with the competition for more than five years.
But the sites left vacant by the stores that will close down will not remain vacant for very long.

In the five years since the opening of Colson’s, a non-discount 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

A parallel example offered by the author:
Colson’s is a non-discount department store.
All the stores in the shopping district closed down because they could not compete with Colson’s
And within five years, a new store opened at every location left vacant by these stores.

Conclusion
The locations of the discount stores that are expected to close down, will not stay vacant for long.

Pre-thinking
Weaken Framework
Now per our understanding of the passage, let’s first write down the weaken framework:

What new information will make us believe less in the conclusion
The locations of the discount stores that are expected to close down, will not stay vacant for long

Given that
There are many discount stores in Goreville’s central shopping district
These are expected to close within the next five years because of competition from a SpendLess discount department store that just opened.
When Colson’s, a non-discount store, opened five years ago, many stores in that shopping district closed down because they could not compete.
In the five years, a new store opened in each location vacated by the stores.

Thought process

Spendless is a discount department store. And therefore, the other discount stores cannot be expected to compete with it.

Colson’s is a non-discount store. So, likely the stores that closed down because of Colson’s must also have been non-discount stores.

Yet, Colson’s case has been cited as a parallel example to predict that the locations of the Goreville’s stores will not remain vacant for long.

We know that the stores that are expected to close down are discount stores and Spendless is also a discount store.

But we do not know what kind of stores closed down because of Colson’s which itself is a non-discount store. But highly unlikely that discount stores would have closed down because of Colson’s.

Chances are the non-discount stores could not face Colson’s competition and closed down.

We also do not know what kind of stores replaced the stores that closed down because of Colson’s.

But high chances, discount stores came up because they would be able to sustain competition from Colson’s.

But in Goreville, the stores that have closed down are already discount ones. And that would make it unlikely that the stores will be replaced soon.

Weakener

So, if an option confirms that the stores that came up in the locations vacated by stores unable to face Colson’s competition, were discount stores, then that would weaken the

conclusion.
The vacated locations were vacated by discount stores. Highly unlikely discount stores would again come up at those very same locations.

Answer Choices
Option A

The passage is not about the competition between Spendless and Colson’s. So, if Colson’s loses many of its customers to Spendless, then it indirectly just confirms that other discount stores will also lose their customers to Spendless. But the option does not weaken the conclusion.
Thus, this option is incorrect.

Option B

This is in line with our pre-thinking.
Thus, this is the correct choice.

Option C

The number of stores does not matter as the passage tells us they are all expected to close down.
Thus, this is not the correct choice.

Option D

An increase in population is likely to lead to increased demand for goods and therefore is a likely incentive for more stores to come up. This supports the conclusion that the locations vacated by the closed shops will not remain closed for long.
Thus, this is not the correct choice.

Option E

The passage tells us that all discount stores are going to close down. So, no matter what these stores sell, they will close down irrespective of that.
Hence, this option does not offer any information about the vacated locations being occupied again.
Thus, this is not the correct choice.

Colson- a nondiscount department store : because of XYZ reasons this caused the other stores to close down their services. And those stores were replaced by another stores
(XYZ could be good quality material,services etc but not reduction in price)

SpendLess discount department store: This caused other stores to close down their services.

Conclusion: As in the colson's case, here also the new stores will be occupied quickly.

Question: what factor can attack the conclusion.
Ans: Something that can reduce the probability of opening new stores.

B -> If new stores opened after colson's store was opened were all discounted, what factor can attract the store owners to occupy the stores? There are already discount stores in the market. So this weakens the conclusion.

A-> In the worst case, this will strengthen the conclusion. If shopping at colson is less after the opening of SpendLess , then SpendLess could have caused. This might influence SpendLess owners to open more such stores. Not a strong reason.

C-> Irrelevant.

D-> Population increases => might case => increase in demand for the stores=> strengthens.

E-> Why the other stores will close if they do not have stiff competition with SpendLess or colson.
Take worst case: If they do have some unique products, the demand for those niche products would eventually increase and would influence the store owners to establish more stores to meet the demand.
This will strengthen but a weak arguement.

According to the argument: The discount stores in Goreville's shopping district will close because of competition from SpendLess discount dept, these stores will not remain vacant for long. In stating this the argument draws parallel with the Colson's case. Since the opening of the Colson's, a non-discount dept store, for every store closed a new store has openend. The author assumes that what happened in Colson's case will also happen in SpendLess's case.

Consider the case of Colson's. Colson is a non-discount store. If for every store that closed due to competition from Colson's, a new discount store opened and was thus able to compete because of discounted prices then this analogy cannot be applied to SpendLess's case because SpendLess is a discount store and the stores that are closing are also discount stores.

Hence my answer is B.

Although the discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district are expected to close within five years as a
result of competition from a Spend Less 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 Spend Less
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.

a tough problem for me.

the conclusion
The vacancy in the shopping district will not stay long, because Spendless will take the empty space.

the premises
The case with Colson's(Non-discount) will happen to that of Spendless(Discount)
Colson competed with the stores around and the stores around closed because of the competition
Spendless will compete with the stores around and these stores will close

In order to weaken the conclusion, we need something to prove that the empty space will stay vacant.

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

If the newly opened stores are the discount stores, these stores will compete with Spendless and close down.
The empty spaces will stay vacant.

Please correct my reasoning if wrong.

I'm not an expert but this is my reasoning: the argument says that 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. The argument then concludes that the vacancy (of the places where the discount stores that closed because of the competition with SpendLess discount department) will not be for long: new (discount - this is the conclusion hint) store will open at those vacancies. It is important that we know the conclusion "those locations will not stay vacant for long".

Note that when we read this, we will see that gap between the 2 statements: there is no connection between them. The first premise talks about discount stores. The second premise talks about the nondiscount stores. At the abstract level, the argument tries to conclude that the phenomenon that happens for the nondiscount stores will also happen for the similar matter of discount stores. This is the gap in the reasoning as the argument tries to use analogy in a loose way: things that happen in one situation won't necessarily in another.

Answer B attack that hole: it points out the difference between the 2 situations: discount stores v.s. nondiscount stores. It says that since the ones that fill up the spots left by (presumably but wrong - nondiscount) stores are indeed discount stores. It means that the spots left by the discount stores (that can't compete with the discount store SpendLess) won't be necessarily filled up (by the discount stores).

This one is subtle and definitely takes more than 2 minutes for me. To solve this, I think you need to look at a higher, abstract level instead of the details. Also, if you think of other ways of weakening an argument such as find another cause, or weaking the causal relationship, you will be stucked because the 2 premise has no connection (which is a good sign that you should step back and look at the whole thing as a whole).

Hi,

Conclusion: those locations will not stay vacant for long, ie new stores will open.

Assumption: a similar situation happened previously and the same will happen in future.

The correct answer should attack this assumption and thus weaken the conclusion.

(E) says that many stores sell merchandise not available in either of the two stores. Many stores not necessarily means many discount stores. So, it goes beyond the scope of the stimulus as we do not know which of these many stores are discount stores.

(B) says that the stores that have opened since Colson's nondiscount stores are discount stores. They were able to compete with a nondiscount store previously, but Spendless is a discount store, so the existing discount stores will close as expected because of competition.

Hope that helps,

Vercules

B is correct.

Tough question. This is my reasoning.

FACTS OF NON-DISCOUNT STORES
- All nondiscount store closed because of competition from a non-discount store (Colson).
- After that there a new store has opened at the location of closed non-discount stores.

FACTS OF DISCOUNT STORES.
- All discount stores in Goreville are expected to closed because of competition from a discount store (SpendLess).

CONCLUSION: a new store will open at the locations of closed discount stores.

Assumption: The fact of nondiscount stores cases is also true for discount stores cases.

The conclusion will be weakened if discount stores and nondiscount stores do not follow the same pattern.

B correctly states that the stores that have opened since Colson’s opened are discount stores, NOT non-discount stores ==> we cannot use the fact of nondiscount stores to make a conclusion for discount stores.

Hope it helps.

can someone please explain how B can be the answer.Since Colson's has been used just as an e.g to explain the situation that new stores opened up in place of the closed stores so the same will happen in the case of spendless stores, so what a difference it makes whether it was a discount store that opened up at colson's time or not?

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.

Conclusion here is that the closed stores' position will not be vacant
To weaken , we must find an option that says , Yes ! those places are going to stay vacant. No new stores are going to open there

As I have gone through the CR Bible , they talk about a technique - find the connectors.Connectors are those answer choices that connect important words in the question stem.
For this question, this technique is very helpful
What are the important words we see in the argument that is not properly connected?
Discount store and non discount store. Authors is inferring something about the discount stores by pulling out an example of a non discount store. So these two needs to be connected.

Now if we look at the answer choices they are all seems out of scope. None of them really weakens the conclusion.
But ! the Option (B) talks something about discount stores and mentions colson's. and Colson's by question we know a non discount store.
So yes , here is a connection building.
Now ! lets think a little more. Since the opening of Colson's , all the new stores that opened in place of unfortunate closed stores are discount stores.
Ans question says all the discount stores are in danger because of a new discount store. That means , this new danger is going to wipe out the existing discount stores as well as the newly opened stores. Had such thing happened , there could be a chance that a big number of vacant spots get created, and they may not get filled at all . Hence the conclusion is weakened . Marginally !

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

Dear vnigam21,

I'm happy to respond.

My friend, I am sorry to say this, but if this question is confusing to you, I believe you have a great deal of work to do in improving your understanding of English before you are GMAT-ready. I will suggest this blog article:
How to Improve Your GMAT Verbal Score
You have to push yourself to improve in English, for example, reading for an hour each day every single day, over and above any GMAt-specific preparations. It's good, in particular, to read the business news of American & English newspapers and news journals, to be familiar with the themes that arise in business.

Now, I'll discuss this question. Here's the prompt:
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.

"Goreville" is a fictional town, a creation of the GMAT authors, and apparently this town has a "shopping district."

A "discount store" is a story that sells items at very cheap prices: often the items are not of the highest quality. A "non-discount store" would be one that sold higher quality merchandise at higher prices. It is the sad story of American business that many "non-discount stores" have been driven out of business because American consumers prefer the cheaper prices of "discount stores" and are willing to settle for the lower prices. In particular, "Walmart" is a very large discount store that has ruthlessly killed off thousands of small businesses. In order to understand GMAT CR, it's very helpful to know the general big-picture stories of the economy.

In the Goreville shopping district recently, "SpendLess discount department store" and all the smaller discount stores in the shopping district are closing because they can't compete. As these stores close, this obviously leaves vacancies in the shopping district, empty boarded-up lots where a functioning store had been. All that is factual, part of the evidence.

The author makes the bold prediction: these lots will not remain empty for long. In other words, the authors expects new businesses to move in soon and start up in these locations. This is the author's conclusion.

Why does the author think this? He argues by analogy.
Five years ago, "Colson's, a nondiscount department store" opened. Several stores closed, but new stores quickly moved it. The author suggests the same thing will happen again.

Of course, this is a flawed argument, and we need to find the flaw. We suspect it has something to do with the type of stores.

The answer, of course is (B):
B. Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since Colson's opened have been discount stores.
This makes the whole picture clear.

Of course, when the big nondiscount store, Colson's, opened, all the smaller nondiscount stores closed because they couldn't compete. In general, it's hard for a small store to compete with a big store in its own category. The stores that started moving in were the discount stores, because these small stores, with their lower prices, could still compete and take enough business away from Colson's. Now, the Walmart-like Spendless moves in: the smaller discount stores cannot compete with a large discount store, so they go under. Probably, if this is following the pattern of American business, Colson's will go under also, and everyone will be stuck with the sub-mediocrity of Spendless. This highlights the flaw in the original argument: small discount stores can have an advantage against a big nondiscount store, but they don't have the same advantage against a big discount store, that's the situation now that Spendless has moved in.

Does all this make sense?
Mike