Community activist: If Venicelpark wants to keep its central shopping

C )In towns with healthy central shopping districts, some of the stores in those districts suffer bankruptcy during a typical five-year period.

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.

In the absence of SaveAll only some store gets bankrupt while after opening of SaveAll more than quarter of stores in shopping district gets bankrupt . Hence SaveAll is the reason for those bankruptcies.

But the answer is E.
could someone help how to eliminate C
Thanks

Please explain how is it E and not B. I can not really understand how is it E. Even if SaveAll stores are not making any losses does not mean that stores in central park will suffer.

Guys I have fallen for B also.Then I have noticed the word whenever in the argument."Records from ... show that whenever SaveAll has opened...within five years the town has experienced bankruptcies."

Whenever is a very strong word and it means that the save all store's winning rate is 100%.So even if all the residence shop from central shopping district,the bankruptcy cannot be prevented.That makes answer choice B wrong.

I suppose B is opposite answer.
If they do most of their shopping in the shopping district. Why would they go outskirts to shop.
Does not strengthen in any manner.
E says that Most of them will earn profits.
Implies that - people will go shop over there and the profits of the city are shared with them thereby decreasing the profits of the shopping district inside city.

Hence, E is answer.

Hello,I got "C" and on further googling i found that the the OA posted here is wrong.

The OA is indeed "C".

Kindly update the OA.

key words here are "bankruptcies", "5-year operation" => E because of "losses"

OA is definitely not C.It's E ,which is correct.

Hi,
i eliminated C so let me take a crack at explaining my line of reasoning. First off let us look at what option C suggests - In a typical 5-year period some of the stores in central shopping districts suffer bankruptcy. *This is irrespective of a SaveAll. Whether or not there is a existing SaveAll. I think you are assuming the quantitative magnitude of *some of the stores* vs *quarter of the stores*. There is no indication in the question which one is greater in magnitude.

C is a weakner... it basically says that some stores go bankrupt regardless of the existence of SaveAll. Hence you can eliminate this option.

Answer is E. Since SaveAll never goes under a loss in the first 5 years and other stores go bankrupt in the same 5 years.. the profits that Save all makes can come from the share of these stores which have gone bankrupt. So Save all can be a reason for their bankruptcy and hence supports the claim of the activitst.

B is the second best answer. However just because most people go to the town to shop , they arent inclined to go to Saveall at all. There must be more information in the argument to substantiate their need to go to SaveAll. such as the discounts at Saveall are better than those at other stores.. the argument just says discount at save all and nothing about the other stores.

B and D weakens, A is OFS
C repeats the passage and the word "some" shows a weak link, hence C is out.
E is a common pattern b/c E strengthens the record.

E & My LOR:

A) Not relevant, how does that affirmation help in concluding that opening of SA in the outskirts should be prevented...

B) Venicelpark population has to shop somewhere- Inside or outside.....But if large %age of residents shop at stores in Venicelpark, less %age shop outside venicelpark, hence opening of SA outside Venicelpark should not at all be an issue....

C) Instead of strengthening, it some what weakens the position of the activist..Indirectly hints that even in Healthy Central shopping districts Bankruptcy happens....

D) Employees being drawn from inside Venicelpark is not the issue activist is arguing about....

E) Most of the SA stores never made any loss in 1st 5 years of Ops....Premise says " 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".

Meaning we don't know if SA is directly the cause but there is a co-relation with the time period overlap.....Reason could be SA or other economic reasons....If it is due to other economic reasons, then the factors should also affect SA stores and hamper their profitability too.......But if (E) is assumed to be True, then the assumption of "other economic reasons" is ruled out.....So it clearly means More SA stores-->>More Bankruptcy hence supporting the activist's argument directly.

A, C and D can be quickly eliminated.

The answer boils down to option B or E.

Option B) A large percentage of the residents of Venicelpark currently do almost all of their shopping at stores in Venicelpark.

This means that any new store that is opened anywhere else, will lead some of these shoppers to the other stores. This would lead to a reduction in business.

But, this is not specific to a new SaveAll store, nor is it necessary that the shoppers would migrate. Nor is it necessary that the migration would be so high that the central shopping stores would go bankrupt. The shoppers may have higher loyalty, or may be in a sense of routine or be more comfortable with the current shopping at central stores trend.

So, the opening of any new store may or may not lead these stores to bankruptcy.

Option E) Most of the newly opened SaveAll stores never make losses during their first five years of operation.

This shows that the large discount store continuously makes profit, that means it continuously attracts more customers, continuously attracts more business. Slowly and steadily, over a span of 05 years, sucks the life out of the central shopping area.
This option adds the missing part in option B. This shows that the shoppers actually migrate. This shows that the shopping is reduced in the central area, whereas it has increased in SaveAll.

Option E it is.

i just feel there's too much drama in those explanations about answer choice E

Can a expert elaborate on the correct answer choice E, and why it is preferred over B? Or if this is a relevant question at all (Link: https://gmatclub.com/forum/community-ac ... 81304.html -> Question is almost identical to this OG question but has a different correct solution)

can please tell me the reason why option C is wrong!!