GMAT prep - VDO rental in Centerville - The Beat The GMAT Forum - Expert GMAT Help & MBA Admissions Advice

GMAT prep - VDO rental in Centerville

Expert replies

auntsom: Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts; Posts: 18; Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 10:26 am; Location: Thailand

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.

Like this post

Source: Beat The GMAT — Critical Reasoning | Mon Jul 21, 2008 3:32 am

raunekk: 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??

Like this post

cubicle_bound_misfit: 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

Like this post

raunekk: 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..

Like this post

auntsom: 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.

Like this post

cubicle_bound_misfit: 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

Like this post

kiranlegend: 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?

Like this post

Vignesh.4384: 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

Like this post

NSNguyen: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 401; Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 9:21 amFollowed by: 1 member; Thanked: 3 times

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

https://bmnmed.com/home/
https://nguyensinguyen.vietnam21.org

Like this post

GMAT/MBA Expert

Stacey Koprince: GMAT Instructor; Posts: 2228; Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:28 pmFollowed by: 694 members; Location: Montreal, Canada; Thanked: 639 times; 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

Like this post

nonameee: 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

Like this post

Post new topic Post Reply

• Page 1 of 1

GMAT Course Reviews

559 reviews

1168 reviews

431 reviews

359 reviews

147 reviews

5/5

5 Star (560 Reviews)

"Target Test Prep is the closest to the official version of the GMAT exam, about 99% accuracy in terms of the quality and quantity of information. The course has excellently created singular sets of focused lessons and tests for every possible topic that one could come across in the official GMAT exam."

"The TTP course maximizes the efficiency of the time you spend studying. It will take time and effort but I could almost guarantee that if you complete the course exactly as it is laid out you will get an amazing score. They also have a very responsive team willing to help with any questions you might have."

"TTP has two things that I think no other test prep company offers: A teaching approach that reinforces understanding and an attitude that will give you the mental preparedness needed to succeed on the test. TTP gives you a deep understanding of the concept you need to know while teaching you how to think."

Write a Review