Loading...
Although the discount stores in Goreville central shopping district are expected to close within five years as a result of competition from a SpendLess discount department store that just opened, those locations will not stay vacant for long. In the five years since the opening of Colson's, a nondiscount department store, a new store has opened at the location of every store in the shopping district that closed because it could not compete with Colson's.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Although the discount stores in Goreville central shopping district are expected to close within five years as a result of competition from a SpendLess discount department store that just opened, those locations will not stay vacant for long. |
|
| In the five years since the opening of Colson's, a nondiscount department store, a new store has opened at the location of every store in the shopping district that closed because it could not compete with Colson's. |
|
The argument starts with a prediction that vacant store locations won't stay empty long, then backs this up with historical evidence showing what happened when Colson's caused similar store closures in the past.
The locations where discount stores close due to SpendLess competition will not stay vacant for long.
The argument uses analogy reasoning - since every location that closed due to Colson's competition was quickly filled with new stores, we can expect the same pattern when stores close due to SpendLess competition.
Weaken - We need to find information that would reduce belief in the conclusion that the discount store locations won't stay vacant for long
The argument makes a specific prediction about future vacancy duration based on a 100% replacement rate from past experience with Colson's impact. The key claims involve timing (5 years, quick replacement), causation (competition causing closures), and pattern consistency (past experience predicting future outcomes)
To weaken this argument, we need to find reasons why the Colson's experience might not be a good predictor for what will happen with SpendLess. We should look for differences between the two situations, changes in market conditions, or factors that would make the comparison invalid. The argument assumes the past pattern will repeat, so we want to break that assumption without contradicting the stated facts about Colson's track record
This tells us that Colson's customers will shop less there after SpendLess opens, but this doesn't affect our argument about whether vacant store locations will be filled quickly. We're concerned with the pattern of store replacement, not the shopping habits at existing stores. This doesn't weaken the conclusion about vacancy duration.
This significantly weakens the argument. The evidence shows that locations were filled after Colson's caused closures, but if the replacement stores were increasingly discount stores, and now SpendLess is eliminating discount stores, then we can't expect the same replacement pattern. The very types of stores that filled vacant spots before are now being driven out, breaking the analogy between past and future situations.
Knowing the current number of stores relative to historical levels doesn't tell us anything about how quickly vacant locations get filled. The argument is about the speed of replacement, not the total store count. This is irrelevant to whether the pattern will continue.
Population growth would actually strengthen the argument by suggesting increased demand for retail space, making it more likely that vacant locations would be filled quickly. This supports rather than weakens the conclusion.
This information about stores selling different merchandise doesn't affect the core reasoning about vacancy patterns. Whether stores sell unique items or not doesn't change the historical evidence about how quickly locations get filled when stores close due to competition.