Loading...
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 the Maple Square have opened convenience stores in the surrounding neighborhoods.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument made in the editorial?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| 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 the Maple Square have opened convenience stores in the surrounding neighborhoods. |
|
The editorial starts by stating its position - that nearby neighborhoods are wrong to blame Maple Square's zoning changes for their convenience store problems. Then it backs this up with one piece of evidence about store ownership patterns.
The neighborhoods near Maple Square are unreasonable to claim that zoning changes in Maple Square caused the proliferation of convenience stores in their communities.
The argument uses a simple evidence-based structure: if the same store operators aren't moving from Maple Square to nearby areas, then the zoning changes in Maple Square can't be the cause of increased stores in those neighborhoods. It's essentially saying 'no direct connection between the players means no causal relationship.'
Weaken - We need to find information that reduces belief in the editorial's conclusion that the neighborhoods' complaint is unreasonable
The editorial makes a very specific claim about operators - it states that NONE of the original Maple Square store operators have opened stores in nearby neighborhoods. The conclusion is about whether the neighborhoods' complaint is reasonable or not.
To weaken this argument, we need to show that even though the original operators didn't move to nearby neighborhoods, the zoning changes in Maple Square could still be causing the proliferation of convenience stores in surrounding areas. We should look for alternative ways the zoning changes could lead to more stores without requiring the same operators to move.
This choice tells us about the personal characteristics of the original store proprietors - that they spent long hours in their stores and knew customers by name. While this might explain why these specific operators didn't want to relocate, it doesn't address whether the zoning changes in Maple Square caused the proliferation of stores in nearby neighborhoods. The editorial's argument isn't about why operators didn't move, but about whether there's a causal connection between the zoning changes and increased stores elsewhere. This choice is irrelevant to that core issue.
This choice discusses general neighborhood preferences about convenience stores - some want to exclude them due to traffic, others want to attract them for consumer convenience. This is background information about neighborhood attitudes but doesn't help us understand whether Maple Square's zoning changes specifically caused the store proliferation in nearby areas. It's too general and doesn't create any connection between the zoning changes and the resulting store locations.
This choice clarifies what the zoning changes actually did - they didn't ban convenience stores outright but eliminated dedicated parking spaces for individual stores. This might explain why convenience stores left Maple Square (parking is crucial for convenience stores), but it doesn't establish that this drove proliferation in surrounding neighborhoods. While it provides context, it doesn't weaken the editorial's argument that there's no causal connection.
This choice discusses which neighborhoods are more effective at securing zoning changes based on their organizational strength. Like choice B, this is general information about zoning processes but doesn't create any specific link between Maple Square's changes and the convenience store situation in nearby neighborhoods. It doesn't address the core causal relationship the editorial disputes.
This choice directly attacks the editorial's reasoning by showing that a national chain anticipated the market opportunity created by the zoning changes and proactively secured prime locations in surrounding areas. This demonstrates that even though the original Maple Square operators didn't move to nearby neighborhoods, the zoning changes still caused the convenience store proliferation by creating market conditions that attracted new players. The editorial's logic fails because it only looked at whether the same operators moved, ignoring that the zoning changes could attract entirely different operators to fill the market gap. This provides a clear causal pathway from the zoning changes to the store proliferation, making the neighborhoods' complaint reasonable.