Community activist: If Morganville wants to keep its central shopping

The passage begins with the conclusion: "If Morganville wants to keep its central shopping district healthy, it should prevent the opening of a huge SaveAll discount department store on the outskirts of Morganville."

The activist bases this conclusion on the following evidence: "Records from other small towns show that whenever SaveAll has opened a store outside the central shopping district of a small town, within five years the town has experienced the bankruptcies of more than a quarter of the stores in the shopping district."

Sure, this doesn't PROVE that the same thing will happen in Morganville. However, the evidence seems to suggest that if Morganville opens a SaveAll on the outskirts of town, then we would expect more than a quarter of the stores in the central shopping district to experience bankruptcy within five years.

According to the author, these bankruptcies would indicate that the central shopping district is no longer healthy (here "healthy" means "flourishing" or "prospering"). The author believes that this effect can be avoided if the town prevents the SaveAll from opening.

The answer to which of the following would be most useful for evaluating the community activist’s reasoning?


Perhaps community activists have thwarted the opening of SaveAll stores in other towns. So what? Maybe if we knew that the bankruptcy rates were LOWER in those towns, then we would have information relevant to the argument.

But simply knowing the answer to (A) doesn't help us evaluate the author's logic. Regardless of the answer, the author would still be concerned about the evidence from the towns in which a SaveAll DID open. (A) is irrelevant and can be eliminated.


We don't care whether residents do all, most, some, or very little of their shopping at stores in Morganville. Whatever the percentage, we would simply want to know whether that percentage will CHANGE if a SaveAll is opened.

Knowing whether the percentage will increase or decrease in Morganville's shopping district would certainly be useful, but simply knowing the current percentage would not help us evaluate the argument. Eliminate (B).


Let's say we find out that roughly a quarter of stores in a HEALTHY central shopping district suffer bankruptcy during a typical five-year period. This would be evidence that losing a quarter of the stores to bankruptcy is NOT a sign that a shopping district is "unhealthy". In that case, the records from the other towns would simply show that, DESPITE having a SaveAll, the shopping districts maintained healthy bankruptcy rates.

So, the fact that a quarter of stores in Morganville's central shopping district will likely experience bankruptcy is no cause for alarm. This is what we would expect in ANY healthy central shopping district. So, based on the evidence, there is no reason to expect that opening a SaveAll will negatively affect the health of the central shopping district.

Answering this question would certainly be useful in evaluating the argument, so hang on to (C).


We don't care about the staff at the SaveAll. The argument is not related to employment/unemployment stats. Maybe most of the employees are from Morganville and maybe not. Either way, will opening a SaveAll cause an unhealthy level of bankruptcies? (D) does not help us evaluate the argument, so eliminate this one.


Maybe they do and maybe they don't. In either case, the SaveAll stores could negatively affect business in the central shopping districts and cause bankruptcies within five years. (E) is irrelevant and can be eliminated.

(C) is the best answer.