IMO A?

IMO, the answer is E.

A) Out of scope.
B) Out of scope... nothing is decreasing.
C) Not more films... more films on videocassettes.
D) Nothing has decreased.

tamina1 wrote:IMO A?

Explanation please...

I thought the question was asking for an assumption. Sorry, my answer is wrong. I would agree the answer might be E.

My choise is A, see elaboration below. What is the answer?

A) Movie fans would be better served by a wider, costlier selection of films on videocassette than a narrower, cheaper selection.
Correct

B) Film and video production will decrease unless there is stricter enforcement of existing anti-duplication laws.
There won't be an increase in release of film on video cassette unless there is stricter enforcement of existing anti-duplication laws

C) Stricter enforcement of anti-duplication laws will stimulate the motion picture companies to produce more films.
Stricter enforcement of anti-duplication laws will stimulate the motion picture companies to release more film on video cassette.

D) Lax enforcement of anti-duplication laws that already exist has led to steady decrease in the profitability of film industry.
This is unknow

E) Existing anti-duplication laws are insufficient to promote releases of new movies on videocassette, and must be replaced by new, more rigid laws
The topic is about enforcement of anti-duplication laws, it has nothing to do with whether the current law is rigid enough.

On the first look only C & E are the contenders

The question is an inference / Must be true question , hence no new information is allowed

C -> Though restates one of the premise, that more movies will be produced, if the laws are stricly implemented, there is a subtle difference here , the argument says that more movies will be released on videocassette, not the general release of movies, if this had "on videocassette" then this would be the conclusion

E -> though , rephrases the premise , introduces a new idea, that new more rigid laws must replace the existing laws, while the argument emphasises on stricter enforcement and its benefits

B -> The oppositite is not true , if the laws are not imposed strictly , then one cannot assume that the movie production will come down based on the premise. This reverses the cause, cause - stricter implementation of laws , effect - more profitablity hence more movies on videocassette

D - > this is not stated in the premise, this the reversal of effect, no x then no Y , cannot be concluded


A -> is a very subtle variation of the last statement , I moved away from the choice once I saw costiler and cheaper, this is not discussed here, but there is reference to savings , this means in case the laws are strictly enforced the savings will come down , this means costiler movies , hence costiler (becos savings is reduced) wider(becos more movies are produced) than cheaper (illegal ,cheap movies) narrower(as less profitable) is possible if the laws are enforced strictly, again the "servered better" - is a close rephrase of "benefit to movie fans"

So what is the answer?

fengjig wrote:So what is the answer?

OA is A

Answer has to be 'A'.

C and E are the traps.

C) Stricter enforcement of anti-duplication laws will stimulate the motion picture companies to produce more films.

Argument talks about releasing more films on videocassettes not producing.


E) Existing anti-duplication laws are insufficient to promote releases of new movies on videocassette, and must be replaced by new, more rigid laws

Argument talks about better enforcement of existing laws, it never mentions about new laws

I am pretty sure that the right answer is A.