More shoes are sold in Town A than in Town B. Therefore the population

Question

More shoes are sold in Town A than in Town B. Therefore the population of Town A is better heeled than the population of Town B.

Each of the following, if true, weakens the conclusion drawn here except:

A There are more shoe stores in Town A. 
B Town B only has stores that sell running shoes. 
C The average price for the same pair of shoes is less in Town A than in Town B. 
D Town A has a larger population than Town B. 
E Most citizens of Town B work in Town A and therefore find it more convenient to buy their shoes there.

igotthis · Answer

C is the only option that weakens the argument by saying that people in town A buy more shoes because they have a larger population rather than being better heeled

Answer :C

BloombergKasia · Answer

Please, notice that we are not supposed to find an answer that weakens the argument but the one that DOES NOT WEAKEN the argument. The question stem is as follows:
"Each of the following, if true, weakens the conclusion drawn here  except : "

kaladhar · Answer

Are you sure about the question???

As per the answer provided by you option A,B,D and E should WEAKEN the conclusion. But I don't think they are doing the same. Can you please mention the source?

igotthis · Answer

Found a similar newspaper example: a-greater-number-of-newspapers-are-sold-in-town-s-than-in-57534.html

jlgdr · Answer

OK so please someone explain how come each of these options weaken the argument A There are more shoe stores in Town A. - Yeah, so what? Does this mean that more people buy shoes? I'm not quite sure B Town B only has stores that sell running shoes - This could also be a weakener. Better heeled with limited amount of shoes is something I would be concerned about C The average price for the same pair of shoes is less in Town A than in Town B - Maybe cause people will be able to have more shoes and thus be 'better heeled' I guess. This could be a weakener D Town A has a larger population than Town B - So what? E is pretty self explanatory Thanks! Cheers J

rrsnathan · Answer

Let me try this one

A There are more shoe stores in Town A.   - More number shoes stores have noting to do wearing shoes  
B Town B only has stores that sell running shoes.   - Weakener - Running shoes are only sold this does not represent the whole population 
C The average price for the same pair of shoes is less in Town A than in Town B.  - Average price is less in Town A when compared to Town B so more ppl will buy shoes so it strengthens 
D Town A has a larger population than Town B.   - Large population have nothing to do with buying more shoes  
E Most citizens of Town B work in Town A and therefore find it more convenient to buy their shoes there  - Weakener - Its says Town B ppl in Town A buy more shoes so the town B population will wear more shoes.

Kudos if it helped

Regards,
Swami.

jlgdr · Answer

I'm still not too convinced with the answers provided... Kasia from EconomistGMAT Would you like to elaborate a bit more on this? Cheers J

JusTLucK04 · Answer

How does A weaken... :shock:

..Can sm1 confirm the source? Also how does C not weaken..If A and B are same in all respects...Then cheaper shoes in A..So more qty is sold..(Agreed that this is not a solid weakener..but better than A)

ronr34 · Answer

Do we have an answer for this?
I find them all weaken except for A which does neither weaken nor strengthen.
It's just irrelevant so that's my answer.
Can anyone back this up?

Konstantin1983 · Answer

A weakens the argument since A says that "yes town A has more shoe stores than does town B". So we can't conclude that people in A re better heeled than people in B. C doesn't weaken; C says that "yes average price in A is less than price in B". Hence more people can buy shoes in town A. C is in line with the argument

jedit · Answer

How does C not weaken it. If average price is less in town A, people don't need to be better heeled to buy shoes.

arvind910619 · Answer

I always have some difficulty in solving these type of question .
Can anyone suggest any book for these kinds of questions.
Thanks in advance.

Quentgmat · Answer

Hi everybody,

I think the question is pretty clear. Here are my thoughts :

A/More shoes stores in town B : there is no link between the number of shoes shops and the number of shoes sold : answer A doesn't strengthen nor weaken the argument : that is the answer
B/if city B shoes shops sell only sport shoes, it's normal that there is less shoes sold because sport shoes are a very specific type of shoes. Weakens

C/if average price in Town A is lower, that means that finally the population of town A is perhaps not so better heeled-weakens

D/town A has a larger population : the amount spent per capita in city A is perhaps way bellow the city B amount - weakens

E-if city B population shops in city A, the statistics are not reliable - weakens

Remember, "not weaken" doesn't necessary means "strengthen". Could be neutral.

Hope it's clear

Sent from my SM-G935F using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

More shoes are sold in Town A than in Town B. Therefore the population

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

More shoes are sold in Town A than in Town B. Therefore the population

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards