Hi Ratin,
IMO E

The gist of Brad's objection can be quoted as
"Since Videorama sold only 4000 videos & the decline in the rentals was 10000 videos, so there must be some other explanation"

His logic is that the nos of videos sold is less than the decrease in rentals so Videorama is not the likely cause, instead some other reason is there

E direclty contradicts this by saying that since people loan these videos to their friends, hence the figure of 4000 gets exponentially increased, which breaks his logic.

What is the OA

Hi Samir,
The answer indeed is E.

My doubt is between A and E because A states that in 1994, Videorama rented out more videos that it sold. This clearly contributes to a number that is more than 8000

Since Brad seems to think that Videorama is not the explanation, A seems to break that view. My problem with E is that it does not explicitly state any number or figure, so the fact that people sometimes lend the videos they buy seems like circumstantial evidence.

Hi Ratin,
I had a slight inclination for A, but the question asks "Which choice most seriously weakens the force of objection that Brad Presents"

the force of objection is nothing but his logic that 4000 video's sold is less than the decrease i.e 10000 in the rentals

only E addresses this & although it does not explicitly mention numbers or figures it states that people who own videos FREQUENTY loan them to their friends, this clearly means that the effect of 4000 is much bigger way

i.e 4000 loaned once = 8000, frequently can be termed more than once hence this figure has a good potential to exceed 10000 & account for the decline.

Also in A Videorama rented more than it sold, but this difference could be very small.

Thanks for the explanation Samir!

I would go for E as well. It seems the best and safest among the rest.