GOOD QUESTION FROM GMATPREP. HELP, HELP

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 1404
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 6:55 pm
Thanked: 18 times
Followed by:2 members

GOOD QUESTION FROM GMATPREP. HELP, HELP

by tanviet » Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:28 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 opening of Videorama, the first and only video rental outlet in the area that, in addition to renting videos, also sold them cheaply.

Brad: There must be another explanation: as you yourself said, the decline was on the order of 10,000 rentals. Yet Videorama 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 Videorama rented out more videos than it sold.
(B) In 1994 two new outlets that rent but that do not sell videos 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 videos of movies that they have previously seen in a theater.
(E) People who own videos frequently loan them to their friends.

WHY A IS WRONG? PLEASE, HELP

User avatar
Community Manager
Posts: 991
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 6:19 am
Location: Bangalore, India
Thanked: 146 times
Followed by:24 members

by shovan85 » Wed Dec 01, 2010 6:50 am
duongthang wrote: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 opening of Videorama, the first and only video rental outlet in the area that, in addition to renting videos, also sold them cheaply.

Brad: There must be another explanation: as you yourself said, the decline was on the order of 10,000 rentals. Yet Videorama 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?

WHY A IS WRONG? PLEASE, HELP
IMO E

(A) In 1994 Videorama rented out more videos than it sold.

See the Bold part in Passage. Does it say Videorama rented it CHEAPER than others? No. It sells in a cheaper price.

Decrease in rental for Video rental outlets in Centerville is 10000
Sold 4000 so these 4000 let us discard it from the rental 10000
Remaining 6000 is still decreased. And in this Videorama's involvement is not concrete as the price of rental is same among the Video rental outlets including Videorama.


(B) In 1994 two new outlets that rent but that do not sell videos 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 videos of movies that they have previously seen in a theater.


(E) People who own videos frequently loan them to their friends.

This one shows an example of a sort of chain reaction :) 4000 copies sold and they were distributed among the owner's circle so the same copies are no more rented by others also. Clearly, causing the rentals to go down
If the problem is Easy Respect it, if the problem is tough Attack it

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 332
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:50 pm
Thanked: 41 times
Followed by:7 members
GMAT Score:720

by rishab1988 » Wed Dec 01, 2010 6:58 am
The answer should be E

The sales of 4k videos as as result of what is said in E are having a multiplier effect.People do not need to rent the videos because they can get them from their friends.The word frequently makes this answer a contender.First the answer says friends [more than 1].No of friends is always an integer.So of friends can be 2 or more.This answer also says the people lend the videos frequently to the friends.This means 4*2=8k rented approx accounted for.But we needed to account for only 6k.This answer choice is very hard to disprove whereas A is very easy to.


A) This answer is a trap.If rented =4001 and sales=4000.The number of unaccounted videos is still a whopping 2k [approx].There must be something that might have caused the drop.

But if rented videos=6k sales =4k.The answer weakens the conclusion.

You can't have a yes no with an answer.

The fact is the number of things that you need to assume to disprove E are more than the number things you need to assume to choose A

This answer does not exactly quantify exactly how many videos were rented.
Last edited by rishab1988 on Wed Dec 01, 2010 7:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 332
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:50 pm
Thanked: 41 times
Followed by:7 members
GMAT Score:720

by rishab1988 » Wed Dec 01, 2010 7:00 am
shovan85 wrote:
duongthang wrote: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 opening of Videorama, the first and only video rental outlet in the area that, in addition to renting videos, also sold them cheaply.

Brad: There must be another explanation: as you yourself said, the decline was on the order of 10,000 rentals. Yet Videorama 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?

WHY A IS WRONG? PLEASE, HELP
IMO E

(A) In 1994 Videorama rented out more videos than it sold.

See the Bold part in Passage. Does it say Videorama rented it CHEAPER than others? No. It sells in a cheaper price.

Decrease in rental for Video rental outlets in Centerville is 10000
Sold 4000 so these 4000 let us discard it from the rental 10000
Remaining 6000 is still decreased. And in this Videorama's involvement is not concrete as the price of rental is same among the Video rental outlets including Videorama.


(B) In 1994 two new outlets that rent but that do not sell videos 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 videos of movies that they have previously seen in a theater.


(E) People who own videos frequently loan them to their friends.

This one shows an example of a sort of chain reaction :) 4000 copies sold and they were distributed among the owner's circle so the same copies are no more rented by others also. Clearly, causing the rentals to go down
A clearly says no of rented is more than no of sold.So no of rented must be more than 4000!

User avatar
Community Manager
Posts: 991
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 6:19 am
Location: Bangalore, India
Thanked: 146 times
Followed by:24 members

by shovan85 » Wed Dec 01, 2010 7:03 am
rishab1988 wrote:
A clearly says no of rented is more than no of sold.So no of rented must be more than 4000!
yes but less than 6000 :) and Rent could be higher than others also
Last edited by shovan85 on Wed Dec 01, 2010 7:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
If the problem is Easy Respect it, if the problem is tough Attack it

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 332
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:50 pm
Thanked: 41 times
Followed by:7 members
GMAT Score:720

by rishab1988 » Wed Dec 01, 2010 7:04 am
yes.Now you get it.

We still have 2k unaccounted videos!

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1309
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:41 pm
Thanked: 33 times
Followed by:5 members

by pradeepkaushal9518 » Wed Dec 01, 2010 8:06 am
best example of this is hostels where if a student buys a cd/video if it is cheaper then this cd will be roam through out the hostel untill it doesnt work. so those will wont rent or buy that cd. hence rental figure will reduce
A SMALL TOWN GUY

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:46 am
Thanked: 3 times

by abhishekg21 » Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:36 am
guys,
dont you think E is strenghtning the reasoning given by Brad

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

AS per Brad there must be some other explanation to this decrease in rentals than the video rama rentals.so in order to weaken this we need to show no other explanation other than the video rama rentals is responsible for the decrease in Video rental outlets in Centerville

so if we are saying that People who own videos frequently loan them to their friends then this is strenghtning his reasoning rather than weakening ?

any suggestions ?

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 332
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:50 pm
Thanked: 41 times
Followed by:7 members
GMAT Score:720

by rishab1988 » Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:40 am
Think deeply.You are contradicting yourself..

No other explanation other than videos sold by XYZ company -brad

E - videos sold are lent to friends....

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:46 am
Thanked: 3 times

by abhishekg21 » Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:03 am
yup..i got my flaw..thanks for clarifying..

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 332
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 3:50 pm
Thanked: 41 times
Followed by:7 members
GMAT Score:720

by rishab1988 » Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:14 am
You are not the only one!.

It happens to me when I totally forget about some useful information.

Btw if you are not so good at CR and RC,I recommend that you do LSAT CR and RC [almost 3000 CR questions and 1500 RC questions in 60 tests] after you have exhausted the OG's.

Do NOT straightaway dive into those questions.You will be frustrated! Most of those questions are 700+ level.They are great for building stamina and reasoning skills.They are tougher than almost any question you may encounter on the GMAT!If you can nail those questions,I think you can blow away the GMAT [definitely 40+,provided you do decently on SC]

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:46 am
Thanked: 3 times

by abhishekg21 » Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:42 pm
Thanks Rishabh.From where i can get these LSAT CR's questions
Are they available on net with their solutions and reasonings ?