#20 - According to sources who can be expected to know, Dr.

[sofcu23]

I have an issue with answer choice A, and the explanation for it. The explanation says that the answer choice makes the assumption that large stores are needed for the downtown area to be considered a shopping district, but isn't this exactly the flaw in the stimulus? Since it fails to consider other possibilities. For example, small stores could still be present in the downtown area, so it could still be a shopping district.
The fact that the speaker is assuming that large stores are the only way a district could be a "shopping" one to me seems to parallel the fact that only Jerome Krasman could run against Esposito, since we know that other people could run against Esposito.

I can see why answer choice B is correct, but I still got this question wrong since I saw A first and it clouded my judgement against the other answer choices, since I was almost entirely sure answer choice A was correct.

I would appreciate some help on how answer choice A can be more clearly ruled out.

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

The flaw in the stimulus is that because one thing is ruled out, all things are ruled out, which fails to consider other alternatives (like another candidate). Answer A is flawed, but the flaw has nothing to do with other alternatives being overlooked. Instead, the flaw is in leaping to a conclusion that seems unconnected to the evidence. Who says you need to replace those stores? Where did that idea come from? This is not just failing to consider another alternative; it's bringing up an entirely new idea!

Look for the argument that rules one thing out and then assumes there are no alternatives (like ruling out Friday and then assuming that they cannot play some other day, like Thursday).