krittapat wrote:
Could you please help explain why option A and C are incorrect?
The correct answer will support the idea that the train company could pay for renovations by moving the station's entrance from its current valuable Main Street location to a low-rent adjoining side street and then leasing the high-rent entrance space to retail businesses.
Let's consider (A).
(A) More train commuters are employed in businesses located on Main Street than in businesses located on the adjoining side street.The fact that the commuters will be coming from main street does not indicate that the train company will be able to pay for the renovations by moving the entrance and leasing the space to retail businesses. After all, neither the passage nor choice (A) indicates that commuters will support the retail businesses.
So, this choice has no effect on the argument, other than possibly to make us wonder whether commuters will use the train less if the entrance is less conveniently located. So, if anything, this choice is a slight weakener. After all, if fewer commuters use the train, then the train company will have less revenue for paying for renovations.
Now, let's consider choice (C).
(C) The high-rent block of Flowertown's Main Street includes several buildings whose owners currently seek to replace long-standing tenants lost in recent months.Common sense tells us that if what choice (C) says is true, then the plan may not work. After all, if there is already empty space on the high-rent block, then the train company may have trouble finding tenants for the entrance space in the station. So, rather than support the proposal, this choice casts doubt on the idea that the plan will work and thus is a weakener.