I bang my head on this one 100 times and left with no energy

[yqren2002]

Thank you Ron. Now I understand where my problem is.

I mistakenly thought that the story happened in two *separated* locations. SpendLess in location A and Colson's in location B. The correct answer said discount stores have been opening near Colson's (location B). In order to weaken the conclusion I must assume the same type stores will open in location A. That's why I questioned that "I don't see any reason to make further assumption that only *discount* stores will open there." *There* means location A, not location B.

Now I understand that both SpendLess and Colson's are located in the same place that is called *Goreville’s central shopping district*. So it's clear now that those locations (where the discount stores are expected to close) might keep vacant as there are already enough discount stores in the same shopping district.

I would be less confused if answer B were rewritten to:

B. Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the *Goreville’s* central shopping district since Colson’s opened have been discount stores.

[tim]

sounds like you've learned a lesson about interpreting questions here. remember the GMAT is not always going to use the exact wording you would prefer..

[arjeet.iitbhu]

What I understand from this question is that if we can provide any other explanation of new stores that have been closed, we can weaken it.

Option B provides the alternate explanation by saying that new stores that have been closed are discount stores this implies that they can compete with Colson's. therefore there is some other reasons by which new stores have been closed.

please correct me if am wrong.

Regards,
Arjeet

[tim]

You seem to have some idea of the basic principle at work here, but you have misinterpreted some vital details that could cause trouble for you in future problems if you're not careful. You mention "new stores that have been closed", but I see no mention of any such thing in the argument. If you are operating on the assumption that new stores are closing, your analysis overall is going to be incorrect.

[supratim7]

Although the discount stores in Goreville’s 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.

Under time pressure, the language (especially the usage of "it") threw me off.

"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 (new store or every store??) could not compete with Colson’s."

Looking back (when the clock ain't ticking) ... the argument turns out be simple (unwarranted comparison between SpendLess & the stores SpendLess is expected to close and Colson's & the stores Colson's has already closed).

(A) Could this stem have been framed better/clearer??

I have faced similar issues (simple argument but ambiguous verbiage, both in stem and in answer choices) in the past.

(B) Does GMAT do this deliberately? I mean, is this a skill that is tested? Is "unpacking ambiguous verbiage", in addition to "unpacking logic/argument", also a part of CR?

[RonPurewal]

Under time pressure, the language (especially the usage of "it") threw me off.

"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 (new store or every store??) could not compete with Colson’s."

The new stores are new stores. I.e., they haven't closed (yet). So it's definitely the blue one.

If you are reading with common-sense interpretation in mind, then this "ambiguity" shouldn't even occur to you in the first place, because it's clear what the passage means.

Perhaps you are just saying that you got lost in the words -- Sure, that happens to everyone. If you get a bit lost, then go back and read the sentence again.
On the other hand, if you're saying that you genuinely thought "it" was ambiguous, then you need to inject a little more "planet earth thinking" into your reading of these things.

(A) Could this stem have been framed better/clearer??

I can't think of any obvious way to simplify it. Any substitute for "it" that comes to mind would make the sentence much, much harder to understand, like legal language.

(B) Does GMAT do this deliberately? I mean, is this a skill that is tested? Is "unpacking ambiguous verbiage", in addition to "unpacking logic/argument", also a part of CR?

Again, if you are reading with a common-sense angle, there's no ambiguity.

The passages sometimes use overly formal language, but I've never seen an official passage that's wordy or obfuscatory.

[supratim7]

Thank you for the reply Ron.

Perhaps you are just saying that you got lost in the words -- Sure, that happens to everyone.

Yes. That's exactly what happened :)

you need to inject a little more "planet earth thinking" into your reading of these things.

Hmm.. perhaps. At times, I tend to read too critically, and my common sense goes out of the window :)

I can't think of any obvious way to simplify it. Any substitute for "it" that comes to mind would make the sentence much, much harder to understand, like legal language.

The passages sometimes use overly formal language, but I've never seen an official passage that's wordy or obfuscatory.

Thank you; noted these points.

[tim]

Glad to see you've taken Ron's advice to heart!

[rte.sushil]

I think in the explanations, one important point is missed to be considered.

Earlier when Colson , a non-discount store was opened that made to open Discount stores in central district where old stores were closed.

Now ,
when Spendless discount store is opening then it may lead to close these existing stores and made to open new stores that offers heavy Discount than spendless OR new stores that has different strategy to compete with spendless.

In other words, I understand spendless discount store is expected to close discount stores but new stores may come up with new strategy that may be good enough to compete with spendless.

E.g. Earlier online digital services were offered at some price. later the services became at discounted rates to attract subscribers. Then what came next? Most of the digital services became free. But the service providers are earning money by offerring some advertisements etc. to subscribers if digital online services are free.

My only concern is : why it is taken to halt that nothing can be done after discount.

Thanks for understanding the point i have raised.

Thanks in anticipitation!

[RonPurewal]

SpendLess is a discount store. The other stores under discussion are also discount stores.

Therefore, if there were any such strategy available to the other discount stores... SpendLess could use the same strategy. So, nothing about the argument would change.

Your point doesn't affect the argument unless you hypothesize the existence of a business strategy that is somehow available to all of the other discount stores, but NOT available to SpendLess. That's an unreasonable assumption (not to mention that it has nothing to do with the answer choices).

[melodyc660]

Thank you Ron. Now I understand where my problem is.

I mistakenly thought that the story happened in two *separated* locations. SpendLess in location A and Colson's in location B. The correct answer said discount stores have been opening near Colson's (location B). In order to weaken the conclusion I must assume the same type stores will open in location A. That's why I questioned that "I don't see any reason to make further assumption that only *discount* stores will open there." *There* means location A, not location B.

Now I understand that both SpendLess and Colson's are located in the same place that is called *Goreville’s central shopping district*. So it's clear now that those locations (where the discount stores are expected to close) might keep vacant as there are already enough discount stores in the same shopping district.

I would be less confused if answer B were rewritten to:

B. Increasingly, the stores that have opened in the *Goreville’s* central shopping district since Colson’s opened have been discount stores.

I made the same mistake because this problem didn't make clear the relationship between 'SpendLess' and 'Colson', I guess it's more reasonable to assume they are located in the same central shopping district, but as I read it the first time I was very confused why Colson's case should apply to SpendLess.

Though, even if I don't understand the problem that well, Colson's case is obviously introduced to support SpendLess', and answer (B) suggests that Colson's case is not valid, thus it can't support SpendLess' case.

I feel that it is more important to find out if certain assumption fails to support the conclusion than to find out what the assumption actually proves, otherwise in this case you can relate to tons of minor details to confuse yourself, i.e 'if these two stores are not located in the same district after all, what if non-discount stores open around SpendLess - wouldn't it co-exist with SpendLess just fine?'

[RonPurewal]

the only straightforward way to read the passage is to assume that the stores are in the same district.

"oh, we forgot to tell you that these places are actually several hundred miles apart... so, yeah, everything we told you is actually irrelevant"
... this would be an underhanded trick—it would require you to read the words in a way that distinctly clashes with common sense.

this exam will NEVER contain "tricky" wordings.

this exam will NEVER require you to think of unlikely or farfetched interpretations/possibilities.

you should ALWAYS read the words in the way dictated by ordinary common sense.

[liu1993918]

I am still confused about answer B.

I know that in the case of Closon, if the new stores are discount stores( B offers this information), they can compete with Colson, a nondiscount stores.

However, in the case of Spendless, the passage didn't mention that the type of new stores. If the new stores are still discount stores, they may not compete with Spendless, so it is less likely they would open. That's why B weakens the argument.

However, if the new stores are nondiscount stores, they can compete with Spendless, a discount store, right? In that case, B seems to strengthen the argument, since in the case of Colson, discount stores would open to compete with Colson, a nondiscount store and in the case of Spendless, nondiscount stores would open to compete with Spendless, a discount store.

I know I must made some mistakes, but I don't know what mistakes I made. Please give me some advices, thanks.

[RonPurewal]

However, if the new stores are nondiscount stores, they can compete with Spendless, a discount store, right? In that case, B seems to strengthen the argument, since in the case of Colson, discount stores would open to compete with Colson, a nondiscount store and in the case of Spendless, nondiscount stores would open to compete with Spendless, a discount store.

the problem is the blue thing.

the point of choice (b) is that there's a current trend, and that trend is exactly the opposite of the blue thing.

you can't just randomly postulate the opposite of what the answer choice actually says!
(if you could do that, then, by extension, you could actually conclude anything from any answer choice.)

[649945592]

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your explanation.

I get what your explanation means by saying historical trends may not apply in the future.

However, the premise itself doesn't talk anything about future stores that will open close by are similar or different types of stores
as Spendless. So would it be wrong to assume that the premise means this?
(Similar to Liu1993's question)

In this case, how do we see ans (b) as relevant?

Thanks again