GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 13 Dec 2018, 21:27

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel
Events & Promotions in December
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
2526272829301
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
303112345
Open Detailed Calendar
  • GMATbuster's Weekly GMAT Quant Quiz, Tomorrow, Saturday at 9 AM PST

     December 14, 2018

     December 14, 2018

     09:00 AM PST

     10:00 AM PST

    10 Questions will be posted on the forum and we will post a reply in this Topic with a link to each question. There are prizes for the winners.
  • The winning strategy for 700+ on the GMAT

     December 13, 2018

     December 13, 2018

     08:00 AM PST

     09:00 AM PST

    What people who reach the high 700's do differently? We're going to share insights, tips and strategies from data we collected on over 50,000 students who used examPAL.

Although the discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 869
Although the discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 22 Oct 2018, 22:48
8
78
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  65% (hard)

Question Stats:

63% (01:39) correct 37% (02:10) wrong based on 2357 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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.


Verbal Question of The Day: Day 134: Critical Reasoning


Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day: E-mail | RSS
For All QOTD Questions Click Here


Argument Evaluation

Situation
Due to competition from a recently opened SpendLess discount department store, discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district are expected to close within five years. But those locations will not be vacant long, for new stores have replaced all those that closed because of the opening five years ago of a Colson's nondiscount department store.

Reasoning
The question is which option would most weaken the argument? The arguer infers that stores that leave because of the SpendLess will be replaced in their locations by other stores because that is what happened after the Colson's department store came in. Since the reasoning relies on a presumed similarity between the two cases, any information that brings to light a relevant dissimilarity would weaken the argument. If the stores that were driven out by Colson's were replaced mostly by discount stores, that suggests that the stores were replaced because of a need that no longer exists after the opening of SpendLess.

(A) The fact that Colson's may be seeing fewer customers does not mean that the discount stores that close will not be replaced; they might be replaced by stores that in no way compete with Colson's or SpendLess.

(B) Correct. This option most seriously weakens the argument.

(C) If anything, this strengthens the argument by indicating that Goreville's central shopping district is thriving.

(D) This, too, strengthens the argument because one is more likely to open a new store in an area with a growing population.

(E) Because this statement does not indicate whether any of these stores that offer goods not sold at SpendLess or Colson's will be among those that are closing, it is not possible to determine what effect it has on the strength of the argument.

Originally posted by beckee529 on 05 Aug 2007, 22:41.
Last edited by Bunuel on 22 Oct 2018, 22:48, edited 3 times in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
Most Helpful Expert Reply
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
P
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2149
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Oct 2017, 14:41
20
5
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:

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

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.

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

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).

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

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.

Quote:
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 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.

Quote:
E. Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are not available at either SpendLess or Colson's.

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.
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | Instagram | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal

Math Expert
User avatar
V
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 7106
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Dec 2009, 10:39
12
4
sagarsabnis wrote:
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....NO RELEVANCE
(8) Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since Colson's opened have been
discount stores.seems most relevant... since it were discount stores that opened after shops closed after colsons opened...and these very stores are the one which are likely to close as a result of Spend Less discount department store so not likely that new shops will open
(C) At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as it ever had.no relevance
(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.no effect on argument
(E) Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are not available at either
SpendLess or Colson's.would have been ok to argue against closing of existing shops but argument is opening of new shops

please explain this...

_________________

1) Absolute modulus : http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
2)Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html
3) effects of arithmetic operations : https://gmatclub.com/forum/effects-of-arithmetic-operations-on-fractions-269413.html


GMAT online Tutor

Most Helpful Community Reply
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 15 Jun 2012
Posts: 1019
Location: United States
Premium Member
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Nov 2013, 02:19
22
12
veenu08 wrote:
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?


Hello veenu08.

This question is definitely good to practice. The way GMAC writes CR questions is superb :) Now let see why B weakens the conclusion.

ANALYZE THE STIMULUS:

Fact: 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,
Conclusion: those locations will not stay vacant for long.

Reason to support conclusion: 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.

ANALYZE OPTION B:

The logic of the argument is: New Discount store opened ==> Current Discount store will be closed ==> But there will be another Discount stores opened in the locations of closed stores.
The reason to back up: Colson, a NON-discount store opened ==> Current NON-discount stores will be closed ==> But there was a NEW store opened in the location of closed Non-discount stores.

STOP. what kind of "NEW store"? :?:

The argument is WEAK is because it uses PARALLEL reasoning improperly. The reasoning is true if the NEW store has the same nature as the closed NON-discount stored. If the NEW opened store is NOT non-discount stores ==> The reasoning/parallel reasoning is NOT valid.

Option B: Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since Colson's opened have been discount stores
B says exactly the same ==> B weakens the argument.

Hope it helps.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

General Discussion
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 1357
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Apr 2008, 20:38
15
10
beckee529 wrote:
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.



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.
CEO
CEO
User avatar
Joined: 17 May 2007
Posts: 2848
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Apr 2008, 21:25
2
1
haha ok here's my explanation.
Lets look at it sequentially :
1. Colson - a non discount story (v imp) opened.
2. A new store opened for every store that closed because of 1.
3. Spendless discount store opens
4. Goreville's discount store close down
5. Will these empty locations get filled up ????

Statement 2 is used as support for conclusion - statement 5. B attacks statement 2.

notahug wrote:
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.
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. [so that means colson will do less business - not relevant ]
B. Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since
Colson’s opened have been discount stores. [ BINGO !! now these shops, will close down if a non discount store opens. But what can replace these ???]
C. At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as it
ever had. [ I fail to see how this is relevant ]
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. [Irrelevant again]
E. Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are not
available at either SpendLess or Colson’s. [so if that is the case then these shops will not close down in the first place right ?]

I first chose E, then a second thought I chose C
Yr reasoning pls!
CEO
CEO
User avatar
Status: Nothing comes easy: neither do I want.
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 2595
Location: Malaysia
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
Schools: ISB '15 (M)
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V31
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
Reviews Badge
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Jun 2010, 15:34
8
4
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.
_________________

Fight for your dreams :For all those who fear from Verbal- lets give it a fight

Money Saved is the Money Earned :)

Jo Bole So Nihaal , Sat Shri Akaal

:thanks Support GMAT Club by putting a GMAT Club badge on your blog/Facebook :thanks

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Gmat test review :
http://gmatclub.com/forum/670-to-710-a-long-journey-without-destination-still-happy-141642.html

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Posts: 116
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2010, 12:24
7
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.
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 10 Oct 2011
Posts: 47
Location: Korea, Republic of
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT Date: 08-16-2012
GPA: 3.05
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Jun 2012, 20:40
2
2
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.
_________________

Luck is the additional surplus on the way to one's constant effort.

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 15 Apr 2010
Posts: 45
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Dec 2012, 02:15
2
beckee529 wrote:
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.


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).
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Status: Making every effort to create original content for you!!
Joined: 23 Dec 2010
Posts: 472
Location: United States
Concentration: Healthcare, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V34
GMAT 2: 750 Q49 V42
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Feb 2013, 02:37
4
beckee529 wrote:
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.



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
_________________

Press Kudos if you want to say thanks

Ultimate Reading Comprehension Encyclopedia | Ultimate Sentence Correction Encyclopedia | GMAT Prep Software Analysis and What If Scenarios -- VERBAL | GMAT Prep Software Analysis and What If Scenarios -- IR

Please Read and Follow the 9 Rules of Posting in Verbal Forum

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4489
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Mar 2013, 10:34
3
beckee529 wrote:
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.



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 .....
http://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 :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep


Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 15 Jun 2012
Posts: 1019
Location: United States
Premium Member
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 May 2013, 00:36
4
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.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 30 Mar 2013
Posts: 50
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Nov 2013, 23:47
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?
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 23 Jul 2014
Posts: 89
Location: India
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Feb 2016, 09:42
6
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 !
_________________

The Mind ~ Muscle Connection
My GMAT Journey is Complete.Going to start the MBA in Information Management from 2016
Good Luck everyone.

Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Status: Final Call! Will Achieve Target ANyHow This Tym! :)
Joined: 05 Jan 2016
Posts: 81
Location: India
GMAT 1: 620 Q49 V25
GPA: 3.8
Reviews Badge
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Aug 2017, 02:18
mikemcgarry, can you please explain this question in detail. Even the argument is NOT clear to me. I tried many times but failed.
_________________

Regards,
Varun


Trying my best..... will succeed definitely! :)

The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long.
+1 Kudos if you find this post helpful. :)

Do Check OG 2017 SC Solutions - http://gmatwithcj.com/solutions-gmat-official-guide-2017-sentence-correction-questions/

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4489
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Aug 2017, 10:31
2
1
vnigam21 wrote:
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 :-)
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep


Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

BSchool Forum Moderator
User avatar
V
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 1223
Location: India
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 4
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Oct 2017, 00:34
3
Awaiting OA. My 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?

A. Many customers of Colson's are expected to do less shopping there than they did before the SpendLess store opened. -Even if the cutomers do less shopping than before, it doesn't explain that why the locations will stay vacant for long after the opening of spend less store.
B. Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the central shopping district since Colson's opened have been discount stores. -Correct. If the stores that opened in place of the closed stores when Colson's opened were discount stores, then there is very less chance that any more stores will open.
C. At present, the central shopping district has as many stores operating in it as it ever had. -Out of scope
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. -Out of scope
E. Many stores in the central shopping district sell types of merchandise that are not available at either SpendLess or Colson's. -They sell the clothes right now, but this statement doesn't help explain as to why the locations will stay vacant for long.
_________________

Kudos if my post helps!

Long And A Fruitful Journey - V21 to V41; If I can, So Can You!!
Preparing for RC my way
RC Summary Activity - New Project to imporve RC Skills
Bloomberg's US Bschool Ranking

My study resources:
1. Useful Formulae, Concepts and Tricks-Quant | 2. e-GMAT's ALL SC Compilation | 3. LSAT RC compilation | 4. Actual LSAT CR collection by Broal | 5. QOTD RC (Carcass) | 6. Challange OG RC | 7. GMAT Prep Challenge RC

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 16 May 2018
Posts: 29
Location: India
Schools: Queen's MBA'20
GMAT 1: 610 Q44 V30
GMAT 2: 650 Q44 V35
GRE 1: Q160 V150
GPA: 3
WE: Advertising (Advertising and PR)
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Oct 2018, 15:21
This is rather an easy one, although the question is well formulated.

Here is my approach,

The argument says that the discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district are expected to close within five years due to competition from a a SpendLess discount department store (This is the premise), but the vacant spaces won't stay vacant for long, suggesting that some new stores will replace them. (which is exactly what the author's conclusion is.)

Now, to further support the premise, the evidence presented says that the predicted conclusion happened in the case Colson's (a nondiscount department store, which opened 5 years ago.), 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 author tries to prove his point that in Colson's case despite the closure of other stores which couldn't compete with the Colson,s new stores sprang up at the same spaces.

The correct answer choice should weaken the conclusion that this won't be the case and new stores might not open up at the vacant spaces at Goreville central shopping district. Only Option B does that. All other options are either "irrelevant" or discuss something which is not mentioned in the argument - OUT OF SCOPE.

Hence, Answer B.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 19 Apr 2017
Posts: 35
Location: India
WE: Management Consulting (Consulting)
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Oct 2018, 04:06
Discount stores are closing at Goreville due to competition from presumably a better discount store. Parallel drawn to Colson's, a nondiscount department store, which led to the opening of other stores. Conclusion - Therefore other stores will open in place of the closed stores at Goreville.

Possible loop hole - what if the stores that opened after Colson's were all discount stores? This would render the analogy incorrect. Option B says just that.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Although the discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district &nbs [#permalink] 30 Oct 2018, 04:06
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Although the discount stores in Goreville's central shopping district

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.