BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

GMAT prep - VDO rental in Centerville

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:26 am
Location: Thailand

GMAT prep - VDO rental in Centerville

by auntsom » Mon Jul 21, 2008 3:32 am
Jennifer : Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000 fewer video rentals in 1994 than in 1993. The decline in rentals was probably due almost entirely to the February 1994 openning of VDOdrama, the first and only video rental outlet in the area that, in addition to renting video, also sold them cheaply.

Brad: There must be another explanation : the decline was on the order of 10,000 rentals. Yet, VDOdrama sold only 4,000 videos in 1994.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the force of the objection that Brad presents to Jennifer's explanation?

A. In 1994 VDOdrama rented out more videos that it sold.
B. In 1994 2 new outlets that rent but don't sell video opened in Centerville.
C. Most of the video rental outlets in Centerville rent videos at a discount on certain nights of the week.
D. People often buy video of movies that they have previously seen in a theater.
E. People who own video frequently loan them to their friends.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Legendary Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:35 pm
Thanked: 56 times

by raunekk » Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:30 am
is it E??
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:34 am
Location: Texaco Gas Station
Thanked: 7 times

by cubicle_bound_misfit » Tue Jul 22, 2008 7:27 am
A. In 1994 VDOdrama rented out more videos that it sold.

-------> Maybe they rented out 6000 videos making Brad's point of emphasis only on 4000 selling weak .
B. In 1994 2 new outlets that rent but don't sell video opened in Centerville. ----> O O S
C. Most of the video rental outlets in Centerville rent videos at a discount on certain nights of the week. ----> O O S
D. People often buy video of movies that they have previously seen in a theater. ---> STRENGTHEN BRAD's
E. People who own video frequently loan them to their friends. ---> Passage does not say anything about customers' habit. O O S

IMO ANS IS A

OA PLEASE.

regards,
Cubicle Bound Misfit
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:35 pm
Thanked: 56 times

by raunekk » Tue Jul 22, 2008 7:33 am
A. In 1994 VDOdrama rented out more videos that it sold.

-------> Maybe they rented out 6000 videos making Brad's point of emphasis only on 4000 selling weak .


In my opinion, this strenthens the claim rather than weaken..
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:26 am
Location: Thailand

by auntsom » Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:22 am
I fall for A also but the OA is E.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 7:34 am
Location: Texaco Gas Station
Thanked: 7 times

by cubicle_bound_misfit » Tue Jul 22, 2008 9:22 am
I understand my mistake.
But can someone pls explain if we do not go by elimination then why E is correct?

regards,
Cubicle Bound Misfit
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:09 am
Location: India
Thanked: 6 times

by kiranlegend » Tue Jul 22, 2008 10:21 am
cubicle_bound_misfit wrote:I understand my mistake.
But can someone pls explain if we do not go by elimination then why E is correct?

regards,
People who own video frequently loan them to their friends.

1000 fewer Video Rentals = 4000 Rentals from VDO drama + 6000 people together who would have rented 6000 times watched movies from the 4000 Rentals itself.

Anyone, pls confirm?
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 443
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:33 pm
Thanked: 5 times

by Vignesh.4384 » Tue Jul 22, 2008 8:26 pm
This is a sort of causation question i guess.

bard says that there must be another reason for decline other than the opening of the new video stall VDOdrama.

We are asked to weaken this. in other words, we wil hav to say that the decrease was actaully because of VDOdrama.

clue lies in what bard says VDOdrama sold only 4,000 videos in 1994

see option E : if the ppl who bought the 4000 videos from VDOdrama loan it to their friends then surely ,, these friends wont go to the shop 2 lend cds ..
indirectly becauase selling movies, VDOdrama reduced the movie rental for other Video rental outlets in Centerville .

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Vignesh
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 401
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 9:21 am
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

by NSNguyen » Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:20 pm
the causal that the passage indicates opening of VDOdrama result in lost of rental from Video rental outlets in Centerville.

E states other cause rather than VDOdrama.

A strengthens what the passage states.
Please share your idea and your reasoning :D
https://bmnmed.com/home/
https://nguyensinguyen.vietnam21.org
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2228
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:28 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada
Thanked: 639 times
Followed by:694 members
GMAT Score:780

by Stacey Koprince » Tue Jul 29, 2008 2:32 pm
This one can get tricky. A couple of things to watch out for here.

We're told:
old places combined = x videos rented in 1993
old places + new place combined = x-10,000 videos rented in 1994
new place opened early 1994, both rent and sell
new place sold 4,000 in 1994

Jen's claim: new place caused decline for old places
Brad: can't be b/c new place only sold 4000

Why is Brad's objection not so great?

A) new place rented more than sold. Sold 4,000. What are some extremes that would still make this statement true? Rented 4001. Rented 1 milliion (boy, did the old places lose some business!). Both are possible because both are > 4000. So, let's take the first scenario: rented + sold = 8001. This supports Brad's objection that it couldn't have been the new place b/c there's a big shortfall - it doesn't reach 10,000. But what if rented + sold = 1,004,000? Brad's not looking so good now. (Note: this is especially tricky: basically, we know that all places combined rented 10,000 fewer collectively - but that could mean that one store actually rented 20,000 fewer while some other store rented more than it had the year before. That's how the new place could have rented more than 10,000, as long as the collective total ended up being a 10,000 rental deficit.)

B) 2 other new rental outlets opened in 94. This helps Brad's objection: it wasn't just the new place. There's another explanation.

C) Price could affect rentals if, say, it cost a LOT more to buy videos in 94 than 93. But that isn't what this one says. And, in fact, this one doesn't say there's any difference between prices in 93 and 94. If everything's the same (and that's possible, given the wording of the choice), then the same stuff can't explain the difference between the two years.

D) This may be true... but it can't explain the observed difference between the two years. See explanation for eliminating C.

E) People who own often lend the videos to others. Someone above said this one is out of scope because these sorts of people weren't mentioned in the argument.

Important lesson: on strengthen or weaken questions, the right answer is going to introduce a somewhat new, but still closely related, piece of information. Essentially, you're going to get a new premise that has an effect on the conclusion somehow. Why does this one have an effect? Jen's conclusion is that the new place is responsible for the shortfall. And this choice explains how the 4000 videos sold by the new place might account for the 10,000-video rental shortfall. Notice that I italicized the word "might" - because it doesn't mean that Jen's definitely right. It just makes it a little more likely that her explanation has merit. That's enough.
Please note: I do not use the Private Messaging system! I will not see any PMs that you send to me!!

Stacey Koprince
GMAT Instructor
Director of Online Community
Manhattan GMAT

Contributor to Beat The GMAT!

Learn more about me
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 12:08 pm

by nonameee » Wed Feb 01, 2012 3:48 am
This is from GMATPrep. The OA is (E) and the correct explanation is by Vignesh.4384
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1