Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 05:34 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 05:34
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
705-805 Level|   Weaken|      
User avatar
Mike03
User avatar
Joined: 20 Jun 2018
Last visit: 17 Jun 2019
Posts: 38
Own Kudos:
32
Given Kudos: 246
Posts: 38
Kudos: 32
City planner: Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simpl 24 Feb 2019, 10:29
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
in my view, this is a cause-effect weakening question.

If a "cause" has an "effect". One of the ways to weaken the question is to check whether "effect" leads to "cause".

Feel free to correct me, if I am wrong.
User avatar
JS1290
User avatar
Joined: 27 Dec 2016
Last visit: 04 Nov 2019
Posts: 236
Own Kudos:
266
Given Kudos: 1,101
Posts: 236
Kudos: 266
City planner: Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simpl 24 Feb 2019, 20:58
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Please note the given language in our conclusion is very strict. It says "the revitalization project WILL SURELY fail. This means the city planner knows for a 100% fact that the revitalization will fail. Any of the options that even gives us a doubt of even 1% that the project may not fail, will immediately weaken our conclusion. Option A gives us this doubt. Though option A certainly does not guarantee that the plan will not fail, it gives us a doubt for sure and weakens the language (WILL SURELY FAIL) of our conclusion.

Posted from my mobile device
avatar
Razoronbang
avatar
Joined: 17 Jan 2019
Last visit: 05 Jun 2019
Posts: 2
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 2
Kudos: 0
City planner: Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simpl 25 Feb 2019, 06:31
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
something that is true for X doesn't necessary be true for Y.
so why A.??
can someone please explain..??
User avatar
mSKR
User avatar
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Last visit: 10 Mar 2024
Posts: 1,290
Own Kudos:
938
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
Schools: IE (A) IIML-IPMX '22 (A) HKUST '22
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
Schools: IE (A) IIML-IPMX '22 (A) HKUST '22
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
Posts: 1,290
Kudos: 938
City planner: Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simpl 24 Sep 2020, 20:25
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Quote:
(B) In a statewide survey of buyers and potential buyers of luxury condominiums, the majority of respondents indicated that they do not consider proximity to service industries to be the most important factor when choosing a residence.
Show more

Hi AndrewN Sir,

Another meaning clarification :
The majority of respondents don't consider proximity to be the most important factor .

What is the right approach to deal sentence with such a meaning:
1. The majority of respondents consider proximity to be one of the factors but less important.
With 1st reasoning, maybe it can weaken to some extend, so better to hold on unless we get stronger option.

2. The majority of respondents may consider proximity to be one of the factor except most important We can not determine whether it is less important or no important( doesn't matter to respondents) at all.
With 2nd reasoning, we don't have enough information so it is hard to weaken the conclusion. So reject Option B straightaway.
avatar
AndrewN
avatar
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Last visit: 29 Mar 2025
Posts: 3,502
Own Kudos:
7,511
 [1]
Given Kudos: 500
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 3,502
Kudos: 7,511
 [1]
City planner: Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simpl 25 Sep 2020, 06:07
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
imSKR
Quote:
(B) In a statewide survey of buyers and potential buyers of luxury condominiums, the majority of respondents indicated that they do not consider proximity to service industries to be the most important factor when choosing a residence.

Hi AndrewN Sir,

Another meaning clarification :
The majority of respondents don't consider proximity to be the most important factor .

What is the right approach to deal sentence with such a meaning:
1. The majority of respondents consider proximity to be one of the factors but less important.
With 1st reasoning, maybe it can weaken to some extend, so better to hold on unless we get stronger option.

2. The majority of respondents may consider proximity to be one of the factor except most important We can not determine whether it is less important or no important( doesn't matter to respondents) at all.
With 2nd reasoning, we don't have enough information so it is hard to weaken the conclusion. So reject Option B straightaway.
Show more
Hello, imSKR. I was just looking at this question a day or two ago, so I remember it well. Your first interpretation is probably closer to the heart of the matter, but we cannot say for sure. Say that on a survey, 10 statements were given from which respondents could rank their preferences. Out of those 10, choice (B) would inform us, most respondents indicated that proximity to service industries [is not] the most important factor when choosing a residence. For all we know, though, it could be the second most important factor, or, in line with your second interpretation above, not considered important enough to even be on the list (perhaps ranked tenth). It does not matter one way or the other, in terms of the question being asked. We need a clear-cut weakener. Again, take a look at the argument:

Quote:
The city council must be aggressive in drawing new restaurants, laundries, childcare facilities, and other service industries to the city center; otherwise, the revitalization project will surely fail.
Show more

To weaken this argument, we need to soften the recommendation and still end up with a likely positive outcome for the revitalization project, something along the lines of the following:

The city council may not necessarily have to be aggressive in drawing new restaurants... to the city center; the revitalization project may succeed without such efforts.

Choice (B) cannot inform our approach to the matter, since the most important part is open to interpretation. Choice (A), on the other hand, provides a reasonable model that other city centers in similar situations have followed to success: the significantly is just icing on the cake.

I hope that helps. Thank you for drawing my attention to the question.

- Andrew
avatar
gmatmed
avatar
Joined: 18 Jul 2020
Last visit: 24 Nov 2020
Posts: 1
Given Kudos: 2
Posts: 1
Kudos: 0
City planner: Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simpl 26 Sep 2020, 19:08
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
The city planner's conclusion is stated in the last sentence: "The city council must be aggressive in drawing new restaurants, laundries, childcare facilities, and other service industries to the city center; otherwise, the revitalization project will surely fail." How does the city planner arrive at this conclusion?

  • In the first sentence, the city planner essentially asks, "If we only expand residential space in the form of high-priced condominiums, will our city center be adequately revitalized?" The answer, according the city planner, is, "No. Offering expanded residential space in the form of high-priced condominiums is not enough to revitalize the city center."
  • So if condominium sales will most likely be insufficient on their own, what else is needed? According to the author, the condominium sales will only sufficiently revitalize the city center if incentives for investment in local small business are also offered. In other words, high-priced condos are not enough; in order revitalize the city center, we need both high-priced condos AND incentives for investment in local small business.
  • Restaurants, laundries, childcare facilities, and other service industries are examples of local small businesses. Thus, the author implies that the city council must be aggressive in drawing small businesses to the city center by offering incentives for investment in such businesses.
  • If the city council is NOT aggressive in attracting small businesses to the city center, the city center will not be successfully revitalized. The author implies that the revitalization project will only be successful if high-priced condos are offered AND if small businesses are attracted to the city center.

Now that we understand the author's reasoning, let's look for an answer choice that, if true, most weakens that reasoning:

(A) According to the passage, we need both high-priced condos AND small businesses in order to successfully revitalize the city center. The city planner implies that the city council must be aggressive in drawing small businesses to the city center by offering incentives for investment in such businesses. But what if those small businesses would come to the city center on their own, without any incentives or efforts on the part of the city council? Choice (A) is evidence that the small businesses might come to the city center on their own to take advantage of the new market. If the same thing were to happen in the city described in the passage, there would be no need for the city council to aggressively attract small businesses or to offer incentives for investment in local small business. Thus, choice (A) is evidence that the city planner's logic is not sound, so let's keep it.

(B) The city planner does not imply that proximity to service industries is the most important factor that buyers consider when choosing a residence. The author simply suggests that the revitalization project will fail if the city council does not aggressively attract small businesses to the city center, without explaining why those small businesses are necessary. Thus, choice (B) does not impact the author's reasoning and can be eliminated.

(C) We don't know why "the city council's recent attempt to attract new restaurants to the city center" was largely unsuccessful. Perhaps that attempt was a failure because the city council was not aggressive or did not offer incentives for investment in those restaurants. Or perhaps the council attempted to attract those restaurants before making plans to expand residential space, in which case investors may have seen no reason to invest in restaurants located in that part of the city. Choice (C) does not weaken the author's argument and can be eliminated.

(D) Choice (D) describes a potential financial benefit that would result from the expansion of residential space in the form of high-priced (or "luxury") condos. The author does not deny that luxury condos would have other benefits (tax revenue, job creation, etc). Instead, the author implies that the benefits will not be sufficient to revitalize the city center unless small businesses are also attracted. Choice (D) does not impact the author's reasoning and can be eliminated.

(E) The city planner does not deny that significant investment might be needed to rebuild the infrastructure and retail spaces in the area. Regardless, the city planner believes that attracting small business is necessary if the city is to revitalize the center. Choice (E) strengthens the city planner's argument because it is evidence that incentives must be offered in order to attract a significant investment that would be needed. Eliminate (E).

Choice (A) is the best answer.
Show more

Was confused between A and B. Can you re-clarify: If buyers don't wish for service industries, isn't it contradicting the author's statement that sales will be sufficient? And if sales are sufficient, it can mean that nothing else needs to be done for the city center.
A : For some questions, we always say that if something happened in other places, doesn't mean that it will be applicable in this situation. Going by this logic, it is not necessary that the sale of luxury condos will attract service industries here.
Help!!!
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,443
Own Kudos:
69,783
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,443
Kudos: 69,783
City planner: Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simpl 30 Oct 2020, 15:50
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
gmatmed
GMATNinja
The city planner's conclusion is stated in the last sentence: "The city council must be aggressive in drawing new restaurants, laundries, childcare facilities, and other service industries to the city center; otherwise, the revitalization project will surely fail." How does the city planner arrive at this conclusion?

  • In the first sentence, the city planner essentially asks, "If we only expand residential space in the form of high-priced condominiums, will our city center be adequately revitalized?" The answer, according the city planner, is, "No. Offering expanded residential space in the form of high-priced condominiums is not enough to revitalize the city center."
  • So if condominium sales will most likely be insufficient on their own, what else is needed? According to the author, the condominium sales will only sufficiently revitalize the city center if incentives for investment in local small business are also offered. In other words, high-priced condos are not enough; in order revitalize the city center, we need both high-priced condos AND incentives for investment in local small business.
  • Restaurants, laundries, childcare facilities, and other service industries are examples of local small businesses. Thus, the author implies that the city council must be aggressive in drawing small businesses to the city center by offering incentives for investment in such businesses.
  • If the city council is NOT aggressive in attracting small businesses to the city center, the city center will not be successfully revitalized. The author implies that the revitalization project will only be successful if high-priced condos are offered AND if small businesses are attracted to the city center.

Now that we understand the author's reasoning, let's look for an answer choice that, if true, most weakens that reasoning:

(A) According to the passage, we need both high-priced condos AND small businesses in order to successfully revitalize the city center. The city planner implies that the city council must be aggressive in drawing small businesses to the city center by offering incentives for investment in such businesses. But what if those small businesses would come to the city center on their own, without any incentives or efforts on the part of the city council? Choice (A) is evidence that the small businesses might come to the city center on their own to take advantage of the new market. If the same thing were to happen in the city described in the passage, there would be no need for the city council to aggressively attract small businesses or to offer incentives for investment in local small business. Thus, choice (A) is evidence that the city planner's logic is not sound, so let's keep it.

(B) The city planner does not imply that proximity to service industries is the most important factor that buyers consider when choosing a residence. The author simply suggests that the revitalization project will fail if the city council does not aggressively attract small businesses to the city center, without explaining why those small businesses are necessary. Thus, choice (B) does not impact the author's reasoning and can be eliminated.

(C) We don't know why "the city council's recent attempt to attract new restaurants to the city center" was largely unsuccessful. Perhaps that attempt was a failure because the city council was not aggressive or did not offer incentives for investment in those restaurants. Or perhaps the council attempted to attract those restaurants before making plans to expand residential space, in which case investors may have seen no reason to invest in restaurants located in that part of the city. Choice (C) does not weaken the author's argument and can be eliminated.

(D) Choice (D) describes a potential financial benefit that would result from the expansion of residential space in the form of high-priced (or "luxury") condos. The author does not deny that luxury condos would have other benefits (tax revenue, job creation, etc). Instead, the author implies that the benefits will not be sufficient to revitalize the city center unless small businesses are also attracted. Choice (D) does not impact the author's reasoning and can be eliminated.

(E) The city planner does not deny that significant investment might be needed to rebuild the infrastructure and retail spaces in the area. Regardless, the city planner believes that attracting small business is necessary if the city is to revitalize the center. Choice (E) strengthens the city planner's argument because it is evidence that incentives must be offered in order to attract a significant investment that would be needed. Eliminate (E).

Choice (A) is the best answer.

Was confused between A and B. Can you re-clarify: If buyers don't wish for service industries, isn't it contradicting the author's statement that sales will be sufficient? And if sales are sufficient, it can mean that nothing else needs to be done for the city center.
A : For some questions, we always say that if something happened in other places, doesn't mean that it will be applicable in this situation. Going by this logic, it is not necessary that the sale of luxury condos will attract service industries here.
Help!!!
Show more
It’s important to note that the author never concludes that, by drawing small businesses, the condo sales will be sufficient. Rather, he/she indicates that, without these businesses, “sales will most likely be insufficient.” That’s different than concluding that adding the service industries will necessarily make sales sufficient, and it also does not mean that the lack of small businesses is the only factor limiting the success of the revitalization project. The author simply concludes that, without attracting service industries and other businesses, “the revitalization project will surely fail.”

With that in mind, let’s take a closer look at (B):

Quote:
(B) In a statewide survey of buyers and potential buyers of luxury condominiums, the majority of respondents indicated that they do not consider proximity to service industries to be the most important factor when choosing a residence.
Show more
(B) does not suggest that buyers are NOT interested in close proximity to service industries. It merely indicates that buyers, according to the statewide survey, do not consider proximity to service industries to be the most important factor in their decision. It’s still possible that proximity to service industries is a major factor and would thus impact buyers’ decisions. Eliminate (B).

And here’s (A):

Quote:
(A) When several nearby cities recently attempted to revitalize their city centers by expanding luxury residential space, small businesses rushed to take advantage of the new market, significantly contributing to the success the revitalization projects.
Show more
While the fact that nearby cities were able to easily draw small business investment to their luxury spaces does not necessarily mean that this particular city will experience similar success, (A) does give us reason to believe that this city could reasonably expect to experience similar success. That certainly doesn’t disprove the author’s argument, but it does weaken the author’s reasoning that incentives are necessary. Remember, we’re not looking for an answer choice that disproves the argument. We’re looking for an answer choice that weakens it. For that reason, (A) is correct.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
IcanDoIt23
User avatar
Joined: 23 Jun 2023
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 29
Own Kudos:
10
Given Kudos: 295
Location: India
Schools: HEC Duke '26 ISB '26 Ross '26
GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q88 V83 DI82
GPA: 8.3/10
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: HEC Duke '26 ISB '26 Ross '26
GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q88 V83 DI82
Posts: 29
Kudos: 10
City planner: Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simpl 25 May 2025, 04:43
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi,

While attempting this question, I found both options A and B to be contenders for the correct answer.

Option B appeared more direct to me in terms of weakening the reasoning of the argument. I agree with the explanation for A, and it aligns with my own reasoning about that choice. However, I'm still struggling to understand why option B is incorrect. Could you please help explain this?

Here's my thought process:
If buyers do not consider "proximity to service industry" as an important factor when choosing a residence, then:
a. They would be willing to buy a residential space even if small businesses (such as new restaurants, laundries, and childcare facilities—all of which are part of the service industry) are not nearby. That is, even if residents have to travel to neighboring areas or places that are not close to their home.
b. Hence, this seems to weaken one of the factors (investment in small businesses) that the author uses to argue for the necessity of such investment for revitalization to be successful.

Could this be where I’m going wrong?
Am I mistakenly equating "investing in small businesses" with "proximity to service industry," or in other words, the availability of these businesses nearby? I assumed the purpose of investing in these businesses was to ensure they are accessible to residents. Isn’t that the case?

Thanks in advance! :)

GMATNinja
The city planner's conclusion is stated in the last sentence: "The city council must be aggressive in drawing new restaurants, laundries, childcare facilities, and other service industries to the city center; otherwise, the revitalization project will surely fail." How does the city planner arrive at this conclusion?

  • In the first sentence, the city planner essentially asks, "If we only expand residential space in the form of high-priced condominiums, will our city center be adequately revitalized?" The answer, according the city planner, is, "No. Offering expanded residential space in the form of high-priced condominiums is not enough to revitalize the city center."
  • So if condominium sales will most likely be insufficient on their own, what else is needed? According to the author, the condominium sales will only sufficiently revitalize the city center if incentives for investment in local small business are also offered. In other words, high-priced condos are not enough; in order revitalize the city center, we need both high-priced condos AND incentives for investment in local small business.
  • Restaurants, laundries, childcare facilities, and other service industries are examples of local small businesses. Thus, the author implies that the city council must be aggressive in drawing small businesses to the city center by offering incentives for investment in such businesses.
  • If the city council is NOT aggressive in attracting small businesses to the city center, the city center will not be successfully revitalized. The author implies that the revitalization project will only be successful if high-priced condos are offered AND if small businesses are attracted to the city center.

Now that we understand the author's reasoning, let's look for an answer choice that, if true, most weakens that reasoning:

(A) According to the passage, we need both high-priced condos AND small businesses in order to successfully revitalize the city center. The city planner implies that the city council must be aggressive in drawing small businesses to the city center by offering incentives for investment in such businesses. But what if those small businesses would come to the city center on their own, without any incentives or efforts on the part of the city council? Choice (A) is evidence that the small businesses might come to the city center on their own to take advantage of the new market. If the same thing were to happen in the city described in the passage, there would be no need for the city council to aggressively attract small businesses or to offer incentives for investment in local small business. Thus, choice (A) is evidence that the city planner's logic is not sound, so let's keep it.

(B) The city planner does not imply that proximity to service industries is the most important factor that buyers consider when choosing a residence. The author simply suggests that the revitalization project will fail if the city council does not aggressively attract small businesses to the city center, without explaining why those small businesses are necessary. Thus, choice (B) does not impact the author's reasoning and can be eliminated.

(C) We don't know why "the city council's recent attempt to attract new restaurants to the city center" was largely unsuccessful. Perhaps that attempt was a failure because the city council was not aggressive or did not offer incentives for investment in those restaurants. Or perhaps the council attempted to attract those restaurants before making plans to expand residential space, in which case investors may have seen no reason to invest in restaurants located in that part of the city. Choice (C) does not weaken the author's argument and can be eliminated.

(D) Choice (D) describes a potential financial benefit that would result from the expansion of residential space in the form of high-priced (or "luxury") condos. The author does not deny that luxury condos would have other benefits (tax revenue, job creation, etc). Instead, the author implies that the benefits will not be sufficient to revitalize the city center unless small businesses are also attracted. Choice (D) does not impact the author's reasoning and can be eliminated.

(E) The city planner does not deny that significant investment might be needed to rebuild the infrastructure and retail spaces in the area. Regardless, the city planner believes that attracting small business is necessary if the city is to revitalize the center. Choice (E) strengthens the city planner's argument because it is evidence that incentives must be offered in order to attract the significant investment that would be needed. Eliminate (E).

Choice (A) is the best answer.
Show more
User avatar
Vibhatu
User avatar
Joined: 18 May 2021
Last visit: 19 Nov 2025
Posts: 183
Own Kudos:
51
Given Kudos: 186
Posts: 183
Kudos: 51
City planner: Our city center will not be adequately revitalized simpl 25 May 2025, 06:54
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja
The city planner's conclusion is stated in the last sentence: "The city council must be aggressive in drawing new restaurants, laundries, childcare facilities, and other service industries to the city center; otherwise, the revitalization project will surely fail." How does the city planner arrive at this conclusion?

  • In the first sentence, the city planner essentially asks, "If we only expand residential space in the form of high-priced condominiums, will our city center be adequately revitalized?" The answer, according the city planner, is, "No. Offering expanded residential space in the form of high-priced condominiums is not enough to revitalize the city center."
  • So if condominium sales will most likely be insufficient on their own, what else is needed? According to the author, the condominium sales will only sufficiently revitalize the city center if incentives for investment in local small business are also offered. In other words, high-priced condos are not enough; in order revitalize the city center, we need both high-priced condos AND incentives for investment in local small business.
  • Restaurants, laundries, childcare facilities, and other service industries are examples of local small businesses. Thus, the author implies that the city council must be aggressive in drawing small businesses to the city center by offering incentives for investment in such businesses.
  • If the city council is NOT aggressive in attracting small businesses to the city center, the city center will not be successfully revitalized. The author implies that the revitalization project will only be successful if high-priced condos are offered AND if small businesses are attracted to the city center.

Now that we understand the author's reasoning, let's look for an answer choice that, if true, most weakens that reasoning:

(A) According to the passage, we need both high-priced condos AND small businesses in order to successfully revitalize the city center. The city planner implies that the city council must be aggressive in drawing small businesses to the city center by offering incentives for investment in such businesses. But what if those small businesses would come to the city center on their own, without any incentives or efforts on the part of the city council? Choice (A) is evidence that the small businesses might come to the city center on their own to take advantage of the new market. If the same thing were to happen in the city described in the passage, there would be no need for the city council to aggressively attract small businesses or to offer incentives for investment in local small business. Thus, choice (A) is evidence that the city planner's logic is not sound, so let's keep it.

(B) The city planner does not imply that proximity to service industries is the most important factor that buyers consider when choosing a residence. The author simply suggests that the revitalization project will fail if the city council does not aggressively attract small businesses to the city center, without explaining why those small businesses are necessary. Thus, choice (B) does not impact the author's reasoning and can be eliminated.

(C) We don't know why "the city council's recent attempt to attract new restaurants to the city center" was largely unsuccessful. Perhaps that attempt was a failure because the city council was not aggressive or did not offer incentives for investment in those restaurants. Or perhaps the council attempted to attract those restaurants before making plans to expand residential space, in which case investors may have seen no reason to invest in restaurants located in that part of the city. Choice (C) does not weaken the author's argument and can be eliminated.

(D) Choice (D) describes a potential financial benefit that would result from the expansion of residential space in the form of high-priced (or "luxury") condos. The author does not deny that luxury condos would have other benefits (tax revenue, job creation, etc). Instead, the author implies that the benefits will not be sufficient to revitalize the city center unless small businesses are also attracted. Choice (D) does not impact the author's reasoning and can be eliminated.

(E) The city planner does not deny that significant investment might be needed to rebuild the infrastructure and retail spaces in the area. Regardless, the city planner believes that attracting small business is necessary if the city is to revitalize the center. Choice (E) strengthens the city planner's argument because it is evidence that incentives must be offered in order to attract the significant investment that would be needed. Eliminate (E).

Choice (A) is the best answer.
Show more
Even If A appears to weaken the conclusion, it need not necessarily weaken.If something is true in other cities, then it does not necessarily mean that something will hold valid in similar case in some different city.

Please explain

   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
188 posts