IMO C

Noone learns anything with just answer choices... pls post reasoning for rejecting / accepting choices. thanks.

IMO E

Brad's main argument is that there will have to be another reason (apart from the sales of video's by Videorama) for the decline in video rentals. E weakens the argument by pointing out that the sale of 4000 video's is a direct aftereffect of the video's being sold by videorama and hence drop in rentals can be completely accounted for by the video sales by Videorama.

(E) appears to be correct for the reasons explained above. but (a) is also attractive ans. While Brad's arguement involves only one aspect i.e. sale, he misses to consider the effect of renting videos which (a) brings out.

okigbo, please post the answer.

IMO E.

The opening statement says : Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000 fewer video rentals in 1994 than in 1993.

Here Video rental on the whole forms the universal set in which Videorama is also included.When the number of videos rented for 1994 was calculated , they have also conted the number of videos rented by Videorama. So pointing out that Videorama renting out more videos than it sold makes the logic fall apart.

Whereas E gives an alternate cause for the effect.

I see why E is the final answer but can't come up with why A is not. Can anyone help me out?

okigbo wrote:I see why E is the final answer but can't come up with why A is not. Can anyone help me out?

Many strengthen/weaken questions can be viewed as cause and effect or explain the phenomenon arguments:

The phenomenon (effect): Centerville's video rentals declined by 10,000.

Jennifer's explanation (cause): The opening of Videorama. The heart of Jennifer's explanation is that Videorama sells videos cheaply. This is the substance or main evidence for her conclusion that it was Videorama's opening that caused the phenomenon.

Brad's objection: There must be some other explanation because Videorama only sold 4000. So Brad's objection centers on how Videorama's selling of videos can't have been a sufficient explanation (for Centerville's decline in number of videos rented out.)

The question stem instructs us to weaken the force of Brad's objection. Choice E succeeds because it suggests that Videorama's selling of videos may well be a sufficient explanation for the phenomenon (the decline in the number of videos rented out by Centerville).

Choice A does strengthen the general idea that Centerville's decline was due to Videorama enticing away customers. BUT it suggests that Videorama did this more by renting out rather than by selling videos. Therefore, Brad's objection still stands.

A is incorrect because, the number rented could even be 4001. IMO E

qms999 wrote:A is incorrect because, the number rented could even be 4001. IMO E

Actually, this is not the reason choice A is incorrect. Even if the number rented out was 10,000, it still fails to remove the force of Brad's objection against Jennifer's explanation. This is because, Jennifer's explanation for Centerville's decline in number of videos rented out is that Videorama is SELLING videos. Brad's objection provides reasoning for why Videorama's selling of videos does not account for the drop in the number of videos rented out by Centerville. (As discussed in my post above).

Before evening going to the answer choices, I was thinking how can video sales decrease video rentals? I was thinking that if someone owns a copy they would not rent it again. 10,000 rentals could be 10,000 different rentals or some combination of multiple rentals (ex: 5000 movies rented twice). With the pre-phrase in mind, I went to the answer choice and found that choice E follows this line of reasoning and therefore weakening Brad's argument. Bingo!

gmasterbater wrote:Before evening going to the answer choices, I was thinking how can video sales decrease video rentals? I was thinking that if someone owns a copy they would not rent it again. 10,000 rentals could be 10,000 different rentals or some combination of multiple rentals (ex: 5000 movies rented twice). With the pre-phrase in mind, I went to the answer choice and found that choice E follows this line of reasoning and therefore weakening Brad's argument. Bingo!

Fantastic approach! It is always better to generate a prediction and aggressively scan for a match than it is to go into the answer choices blind.

But we have to weaken Brads argument.so A seems correct.Isnt E strengthning Brads reply.?