­Editorial: It is unreasonable for the neighborhoods near Maple Square

­This is incorrect.

What we actually want to weaken is the reasoning behind why the editorial calls the claim unreasonable.

"It is a matter of record that none of the operators of the stores that were closed down in the Maple Square have opened convenience stores in the surrounding neighborhoods."

The argument here is that the claim is incorrect because none of the stores that left Maple Square opened a convenience store in the neighbourhoods therefore the new stores are not due to the zoning changes.

Hence option E, which states that other stores identifed a market caused by the zoning changes and swooped in, is correct here because it serves the purpose of putting the blame on the zoning changes and weakens the editorial argument.

MartyMurray GMATNinja can you please provide explanation for this? It is kind of confusing as to what it says. It says that "there has been a proliferation of convenience stores, and also says convenience stores were driven out due to zoning changes". The reasonable cause I can think of is that the zoning changes created more opportunities for new convenience stores while revoking permissions for existing ones. The editorial SUPPORTS this by saying neighbouring places did not open new stores. So which side is the editorial really taking here?

­I think you need to read the passage more carefully.

It doesn't say, "neighbouring places did not open new stores."

Rather, it mentions a "proliferation of convenience stores" in "the neighborhoods near Maple Square." So, clearly, new stores did open in neighboring places.

So, the point is that convenience stores were driven out of Maple Square, and then many were established in nearby neighborhoods.­

­Editorial: It is unreasonable for the neighborhoods near Maple Square to claim that the proliferation of convenience stores in their communities, with the attendant increase in traffic and noise, is the result of zoning changes that drove convenience stores out of Maple Square itself. It is a matter of record that none of the operators of the stores that were closed down in Maple Square have opened convenience stores in the surrounding neighborhoods.

The conclusion of the argument is the following:

It is unreasonable for the neighborhoods near Maple Square to claim that the proliferation of convenience stores in their communities, with the attendant increase in traffic and noise, is the result of zoning changes that drove convenience stores out of Maple Square itself.

The support for the conclusion is the following:

It is a matter of record that none of the operators of the stores that were closed down in the Maple Square have opened convenience stores in the surrounding neighborhoods.

We see that the reasoning of the argument is that, since the new convenience stores are not operated by operators of stores driven out of Maple Square, it must not be the case that the cause of the proliferation of new stores is the zoning changes that drove convenience stores out of Maple Square.

It might jump out at us that this reasoning is pretty weak. After all, it could be that new convenience stores were established in the nearby neighborhoods because the ones in Maple Square were shut down even if the stores are operated by different people.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weake­ns the argument made in the editorial?

This is a Weaken question, and the correct answer will show that, even though the evidence presented is true, the conclusion may not be.

(A) The proprietors of the convenience stores in Maple Square tended to spend long hours in their stores and to know many of their regular customers by name.

This information has no effect on the strength of the argument.

After all, regardless of how proprietors of stores in Maple Square ran their stores, it could still be that the reason for proliferation of convenience stores in the nearby neighborhoods is the zoning changes.

In other words, this information on how stores that were shut down were run doesn't tell us anything about why new stores were established.

Eliminate.

(B) While some neighborhoods seek to exclude convenience stores because they cause an increase in traffic, others seek to attract them since they provide a service that some consumers want.

This general information about what different neighborhoods want does not indicate whether, in this particular case, the zoning changes caused a proliferation of convenience stores.

So, this choice has no effect on the strength of the case for the conclusion.

Eliminate.

(C) The zoning changes did not specifically exclude convenience stores from Maple Square but made it impossible for any store to reserve adjacent parking space exclusively for that store's customers.

This choice can be tempting because it can appear to cast doubt on the idea that the zoning changes drove the convenience stores out of Maple Square.

At the same time, there are reasons why this choice is not correct.

The first is that, regardless of whether the zoning changes specifically excluded convenience stores from Maple Square, by making it impossible for any store to reserve adjacent parking space exclusively for that store's customers, the zoning changes could have effectively driven convenience stores out of Maple Square, as the passage implies that they did when it mentions "the stores that were closed down in Maple Square." Apparently, some stores were closed down. So, this choice does not actually cast doubt on the idea that the zoning changes drove convenience stores out of Maple Square.

Another is that the conclusion we're seeking to cast doubt on is not that the zoning changes drove the convenience stores out of Maple Square but rather that the zoning changes caused the proliferation of stores in nearby neighborhoods. The fact that the zoning changes did not specifically exclude convenience stores from Maple Square does not mean that they didn't cause proliferation of convenience stores in neighboring areas by making it difficult for convenience stores to operate in Maple Square.

So, this choice has no effect on the strength of the argument.

Eliminate.

(D) Neighborhoods with active and well-organized neighborhood associations tend to be more effective in securing zoning changes than are neighborhoods without such organizations.

This choice clearly has no effect on the strength of the argument.

After all, this choice is not about the effects of zoning changes. It's about what causes zoning changes, and regardless of what underlies zoning changes in general, these particular zoning changes may or may not have had the effect of causing proliferation of convenience stores in nearby neighborhoods.

Eliminate.

(E) Anticipating a market for convenience stores in the area around Maple Square, a national convenience-store chain secured the best store locations when the Maple Sqaure zoning changes were first proposed.­

The support for the argument's conclusion is that "It is a matter of record that none of the operators of the stores that were closed down in the Maple Square have opened convenience stores in the surrounding neighborhoods." Basically, the point is that driving convenience stores out of Maple Square didn't cause the proliferation in nearby areas because the stores in nearby areas are not operated by the same people who operated the ones in Maple Square. So, it's not as if the stores just moved.

Thus, this choice casts doubt on that reasoning by showing that, even though the new stores are not operated by anyone who operated the stores in Maple Square, it could still be that the zoning changes caused the establishment of the new stores because what happened was that a chain became aware of the zoning changes, grabbed all the good locations, and opened convenience stores there in response to the driving of convenience stores out of Maple Square.

So, sure, the operators of stores driven out of Maple Square didn't set up shop in nearby areas, but the zoning changes still caused the proliferation in another way.

Thus, this choice shows how it could be that the zoning changes caused the proliferation and thus casts doubt on the conclusion.

Keep.

Correct answer: E­