Twenty percent of the stores in Morganville's downtown

[gmatprep14]

Which of the following completes the argument below.

Twenty percent of the stores in Morganville's downtown shopping district will fail within five years because they will be competing directly with the Savemart discount department store newly opened in East Morganville. The downtown shopping district has lost business at this rate before and has always completey rebounded. Confidence that it will rebound again from the losses it is now about to suffer is ill founded, however, because _____________________

A) the stores likely to be put out of business by direct competition from Savemart are the downton shopping district's anchor stores, on whose ability to draw shoppers many of the other downtown stores depend

B) the bus line that has long connected the downtown area of Morganville with East Morganville has a tradition of carrying shoppers who reside in East Morganville into downtown Morganville to shop

C) when the downtown shopping district has rebounded before, the business premises of a failed business were typically taken over by a business of the same kind as had been there before

D) Savemart's business plan for the East Morganville store is based on earning low profits, if any, during the first 5 years of store's existence

E) it is conceivable that the downtown shopping district could shrink substantially without collapsing altogether

OA - A . I got it using POE.
Somehow not convinced with the answer .Not sure what is wrong with D .
Please share your views

[gmatprep14]

Ron/Stacey

I guess you guys missed this post . Eagerly waiting for your reply :)

[RonPurewal]

Which of the following completes the argument below.

Twenty percent of the stores in Morganville's downtown shopping district will fail within five years because they will be competing directly with the Savemart discount department store newly opened in East Morganville. The downtown shopping district has lost business at this rate before and has always completey rebounded. Confidence that it will rebound again from the losses it is now about to suffer is ill founded, however, because _____________________

A) the stores likely to be put out of business by direct competition from Savemart are the downton shopping district's anchor stores, on whose ability to draw shoppers many of the other downtown stores depend

B) the bus line that has long connected the downtown area of Morganville with East Morganville has a tradition of carrying shoppers who reside in East Morganville into downtown Morganville to shop

C) when the downtown shopping district has rebounded before, the business premises of a failed business were typically taken over by a business of the same kind as had been there before

D) Savemart's business plan for the East Morganville store is based on earning low profits, if any, during the first 5 years of store's existence

E) it is conceivable that the downtown shopping district could shrink substantially without collapsing altogether

OA - A . I got it using POE.
Somehow not convinced with the answer .Not sure what is wrong with D .
Please share your views

(d) is completely irrelevant. the magnitude of profits for savemart has no apparent relationship to the future of business in the downtown shopping district.
in order to connect those two concepts, you would have to make a whole truckload of assumptions that have no concrete justification.

--

this is basically a WEAKEN problem. on "weaken" problems, you should SIMPLIFY THE MAIN LINE OF ARGUMENT as much as possible, in order to throw the argument (and possible counter-arguments) into a clearer light.

in this problem, the main line of argument is
this time, the downtown shopping district WILL NOT be able to rebound, for reason X.
therefore, "reason X" (i.e., the answer to this problem) must be something that will absolutely undermine the downtown district's ability to recover from this blow.

choice (a) does this. if that statement is true, then the other stores (which depend on the allure of these anchor stores) will also fail, creating a downward spiral that will seriously imperil (if not outright destroy) the downtown district's ability to recover.

[RonPurewal]

Ron/Stacey

I guess you guys missed this post . Eagerly waiting for your reply :)

DO NOT "BUMP" POSTS.
if you "bump" a post, it will go to the END of the queue.

this is not a punishment - it's just a function of the way we administer the forums: we always answer the oldest posts first. if you make a "bump post" like this one, then your post suddenly becomes the newest - which means it's back to the end of the line.

[alexei600]

Ron,
How important is the other information in this argument such as 20%, location of the town name of the discount store etc..
when I read, I tried to concentrate on the 20%, a game between % and concreate valuues. etc..
Buttom line what is important to read on weaken/stren. type of questions?
Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

Ron,
How important is the other information in this argument such as 20%, location of the town name of the discount store etc..
when I read, I tried to concentrate on the 20%, a game between % and concreate valuues. etc..
Buttom line what is important to read on weaken/stren. type of questions?
Thanks.

strengthening and weakening questions are not going to be ridiculously precise in nature; you should be paying attention to the "big picture" of the argument in the problem. i.e., nothing essential will change if you take out 20% and replace it with a percentage that's in the same rough range.

particulars such as the name of the town definitely don't matter, unless there are two or more towns in the argument -- i.e., unless there is some reason why you'll actually have to know which town is which.

check out the march 4 video here:
http://www.manhattangmat.com/thursdays-with-ron.cfm
that video is mostly about "find the assumption" questions, but there is a chunk of information about strengthening and weakening questions that you may find helpful.

[lydiafj.yang]

Which of the following completes the argument below.

Twenty percent of the stores in Morganville's downtown shopping district will fail within five years because they will be competing directly with the Savemart discount department store newly opened in East Morganville. The downtown shopping district has lost business at this rate before and has always completey rebounded. Confidence that it will rebound again from the losses it is now about to suffer is ill founded, however, because _____________________

A) the stores likely to be put out of business by direct competition from Savemart are the downton shopping district's anchor stores, on whose ability to draw shoppers many of the other downtown stores depend

B) the bus line that has long connected the downtown area of Morganville with East Morganville has a tradition of carrying shoppers who reside in East Morganville into downtown Morganville to shop

C) when the downtown shopping district has rebounded before, the business premises of a failed business were typically taken over by a business of the same kind as had been there before

D) Savemart's business plan for the East Morganville store is based on earning low profits, if any, during the first 5 years of store's existence

E) it is conceivable that the downtown shopping district could shrink substantially without collapsing altogether

OA - A . I got it using POE.
Somehow not convinced with the answer .Not sure what is wrong with D .
Please share your views

(d) is completely irrelevant. the magnitude of profits for savemart has no apparent relationship to the future of business in the downtown shopping district.
in order to connect those two concepts, you would have to make a whole truckload of assumptions that have no concrete justification.

--

this is basically a WEAKEN problem. on "weaken" problems, you should SIMPLIFY THE MAIN LINE OF ARGUMENT as much as possible, in order to throw the argument (and possible counter-arguments) into a clearer light.

in this problem, the main line of argument is
this time, the downtown shopping district WILL NOT be able to rebound, for reason X.
therefore, "reason X" (i.e., the answer to this problem) must be something that will absolutely undermine the downtown district's ability to recover from this blow.

choice (a) does this. if that statement is true, then the other stores (which depend on the allure of these anchor stores) will also fail, creating a downward spiral that will seriously imperil (if not outright destroy) the downtown district's ability to recover.

Hi Ron,

(A) says many of the other downtown stores depend on anchor stores' ability to draw shoppers, and these anchor stores will fail by direct competition from SaveMart -- that is, SM will take customers from these anchor stores.

It seems that the other downtown stores can still count on SM without losing customers. Thus, the downward spiral won't occur, opposite to what you pointed out.

There must be something wrong with my deduction. Pls help catch it!

Thanks & Happy Valentine's Day ;)

Lydia.

[tim]

If the non-anchor stores fail, there are still anchor stores to bring in customers and thus new businesses may spring up in the place of the failed businesses, taking advantage of the drawing power of the anchor stores. If the anchor stores fail, though, with them go the drawing power of the downtown shopping area and thus the possibility of replacement stores coming in to the area. Does this help?

[Tsang_oyan]

Which of the following completes the argument below.

Twenty percent of the stores in Morganville's downtown shopping district will fail within five years because they will be competing directly with the Savemart discount department store newly opened in East Morganville. The downtown shopping district has lost business at this rate before and has always completey rebounded. Confidence that it will rebound again from the losses it is now about to suffer is ill founded, however, because _____________________

A) the stores likely to be put out of business by direct competition from Savemart are the downton shopping district's anchor stores, on whose ability to draw shoppers many of the other downtown stores depend

B) the bus line that has long connected the downtown area of Morganville with East Morganville has a tradition of carrying shoppers who reside in East Morganville into downtown Morganville to shop

C) when the downtown shopping district has rebounded before, the business premises of a failed business were typically taken over by a business of the same kind as had been there before

D) Savemart's business plan for the East Morganville store is based on earning low profits, if any, during the first 5 years of store's existence

E) it is conceivable that the downtown shopping district could shrink substantially without collapsing altogether

OA - A . I got it using POE.
Somehow not convinced with the answer .Not sure what is wrong with D .
Please share your views

(d) is completely irrelevant. the magnitude of profits for savemart has no apparent relationship to the future of business in the downtown shopping district.
in order to connect those two concepts, you would have to make a whole truckload of assumptions that have no concrete justification.

--

this is basically a WEAKEN problem. on "weaken" problems, you should SIMPLIFY THE MAIN LINE OF ARGUMENT as much as possible, in order to throw the argument (and possible counter-arguments) into a clearer light.

in this problem, the main line of argument is
this time, the downtown shopping district WILL NOT be able to rebound, for reason X.
therefore, "reason X" (i.e., the answer to this problem) must be something that will absolutely undermine the downtown district's ability to recover from this blow.

choice (a) does this. if that statement is true, then the other stores (which depend on the allure of these anchor stores) will also fail, creating a downward spiral that will seriously imperil (if not outright destroy) the downtown district's ability to recover.

May I ask what is the problem of choice B & C?

[RonPurewal]

May I ask what is the problem of choice B & C?

(b) doesn't do much of anything, because (b) is talking about something that has been the same for a really, really long time.
"that has long ..."
"... tradition ..."
remember that you're trying to make the case that things will be different this time! that's not something you can do by talking about something that's the same as it has always been.

(c) gives us no reason to believe that the same pattern won't be followed again this time. in other words, (c) just says "here's the way it happened the last few times" -- but there's nothing here that precludes the possibility that the same thing could happen yet again.

[davetzulin]

although a bit of a stretch, D seemed like the opposite answer:

D) Savemart's business plan for the East Morganville store is based on earning low profits, if any, during the first 5 years of store's existence

since after 5 years the downtown could possibly compete again. wrong in either case though.

as for answer choice A, I kept my eye on it the whole time but I was looking for an additional bit of info to make it less of a stretch

...The downtown shopping district has lost business at this rate before and has always completey rebounded...

What in this question allows us to assume that the previous downturn/rebound of downtown was not because of anchor stores being closed?

if A said something like an unprecedented closing of anchor stores or something to that effect, A would seem more reasonable.

[RonPurewal]

What in this question allows us to assume that the previous downturn/rebound of downtown was not because of anchor stores being closed?

well, nothing -- but that's the whole point: we don't know whether anchor stores were involved in the previous instances of this phenomenon, and, this time, we DO know that anchor stores are involved.

that's enough to cast doubt on the conclusion (unless you are coming at this like a formal logician, in which case you had better stop doing that).

[CrystalSpringston]

Hi Ron, what is wrong with E?
E says downtown shopping district could shrink substantially. Does that mean the total business will go down and maybe it is difficult to rebound ?

Thank you!

[RonPurewal]

the issue here is whether the district will 'rebound' from its losses—i.e., whether it will return to its original state of economic prosperity.

that's the issue:
...will it rebound?
or
...will it not?

and that's all.

both things in choice E represent failure here.
if the district 'shrinks substantially', then ... it doesn't rebound.
if it 'collapses', then ... it doesn't rebound.
so, as far as we are concerned, this is a non-distinction.

[CrystalSpringston]

the issue here is whether the district will 'rebound' from its losses—i.e., whether it will return to its original state of economic prosperity.

that's the issue:
...will it rebound?
or
...will it not?

and that's all.

both things in choice E represent failure here.
if the district 'shrinks substantially', then ... it doesn't rebound.
if it 'collapses', then ... it doesn't rebound.
so, as far as we are concerned, this is a non-distinction.

Hi Ron, sorry , I still don't understand it.
The question is Confidence that it will rebound again from the losses it is now about to suffer is ill founded, however, because __________.
The conclusion is alreay that it will not rebound.
I think both shrinking and collapsing in E can contribute to the failure.
Pls help. ThankS