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.
my concern: why A cannot be the answer here?. i agree that statement in option A can fluctuate either ways,i.e.,we might have a situation in which rented videos are 4001 and sold videos are 4000 ,thereby the total amounting to 8001 and hence it might not explain the deficit of 10,000. however we can also have a situation in which rented videos are 6000 and sold videos are 4000,there by accounting a deficit of 10,000.
if someone discards option A stating that option A can give fluctuating results then the same logic can also be applied to discard option E,i.e., people who own videos might not just rent as much as to account the deficit of 10,000?
thanks and regards
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together
This topic has expert replies
-
aditya8062
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 774
- Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:32 am
- Thanked: 46 times
- Followed by:14 members
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
Brent@GMATPrepNow
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 16207
- Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:26 pm
- Location: Vancouver, BC
- Thanked: 5254 times
- Followed by:1268 members
- GMAT Score:770
When I first read this, I made the same mistake that you are making. I interpreted the passage as saying Videorama essentially stole/poached 10,000 video rentals from the other video rental outlets in Centerville. This interpretation is incorrect.aditya8062 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?
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.
IMPORTANT: Videorama is among the video rental outlets in Centerville. So, the passage is really telling us that, in 1994, the RESIDENTS of Centerville rented 10,000 fewer videos than they rented in 1993.
So, why would the townspeople rent 10,000 fewer videos?
Brad argues that the reduction in video rentals cannot be due to Videorama's opening, because Videorama sold only 4000 videos.
NOTE: When answering Weaken the Argument questions, we should look for any unstated assumptions.
Here, Brad is making the assumption that Videorama could be the cause of the reduction ONLY IF Videorama sold 10,000 videos. The underlying assumption is that a purchased video is watched by the video owner only .
Answer choice E blows that assumption out of the water by saying that video owners frequently loan the videos to friends. This seriously weakens the argument.
Answer: E
Cheers,
Brent
Brent Hanneson - Creator of GMATPrepNow.com
-
aditya8062
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 774
- Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:32 am
- Thanked: 46 times
- Followed by:14 members
thanks Brent
i accept this point:
the "other guy" denies this reasoning,saying that this new video outlet sold just 4000 videos .
how do i counter this "other guy's" reasoning ? --->can't i say that that this new outlet rented 6000 videos and sold around 4000!! wont that be sufficient ? ---->effectively this "news store" is ultimately responsible for 10000 fewer renting of the videos
thanks
i accept this point:
the fact that people in this city rented fewer than 10000 videos is attributed to the opening of this new video centerIMPORTANT: Videorama is among the video rental outlets in Centerville. So, the passage is really telling us that, in 1994, the RESIDENTS of Centerville rented 10,000 fewer videos than they rented in 1993.
the "other guy" denies this reasoning,saying that this new video outlet sold just 4000 videos .
how do i counter this "other guy's" reasoning ? --->can't i say that that this new outlet rented 6000 videos and sold around 4000!! wont that be sufficient ? ---->effectively this "news store" is ultimately responsible for 10000 fewer renting of the videos
thanks
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
Brent@GMATPrepNow
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 16207
- Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:26 pm
- Location: Vancouver, BC
- Thanked: 5254 times
- Followed by:1268 members
- GMAT Score:770
If the new store (Videorama) rented 6000 videos, then those 6000 video rentals were INCLUDED in the total number of video rentals in Centerville in 1994. There were included because Videorama is a video rental outlet in Centerville.aditya8062 wrote:thanks Brent
i accept this point:the fact that people in this city rented fewer than 10000 videos is attributed to the opening of this new video centerIMPORTANT: Videorama is among the video rental outlets in Centerville. So, the passage is really telling us that, in 1994, the RESIDENTS of Centerville rented 10,000 fewer videos than they rented in 1993.
the "other guy" denies this reasoning,saying that this new video outlet sold just 4000 videos .
how do i counter this "other guy's" reasoning ? --->can't i say that that this new outlet rented 6000 videos and sold around 4000!! wont that be sufficient ? ---->effectively this "news store" is ultimately responsible for 10000 fewer renting of the videos
thanks
In other words, the 6000 video rentals would not account for anything.
Cheers,
Brent
Brent Hanneson - Creator of GMATPrepNow.com
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
Brent@GMATPrepNow
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 16207
- Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:26 pm
- Location: Vancouver, BC
- Thanked: 5254 times
- Followed by:1268 members
- GMAT Score:770
Here's another way to look at it.aditya8062 wrote:thanks Brent
i accept this point:the fact that people in this city rented fewer than 10000 videos is attributed to the opening of this new video centerIMPORTANT: Videorama is among the video rental outlets in Centerville. So, the passage is really telling us that, in 1994, the RESIDENTS of Centerville rented 10,000 fewer videos than they rented in 1993.
the "other guy" denies this reasoning,saying that this new video outlet sold just 4000 videos .
how do i counter this "other guy's" reasoning ? --->can't i say that that this new outlet rented 6000 videos and sold around 4000!! wont that be sufficient ? ---->effectively this "news store" is ultimately responsible for 10000 fewer renting of the videos
thanks
Let's say that, in 1993, there were 2 video rental stores: Store A and Store B
Let's say the video rentals for 1993 were as follows:
Store A: 50,000
Store B: 50,000
TOTAL: 100,000 rentals in 1993
Then in 2004, Videorama opened.
Let's say the video rentals for 1994 were as follows:
Store A: 0
Store B: 0
Videorama: 90,000
TOTAL: 90,000 rentals in 1994
Clearly Videorama stole all of the video rental business from Stores A and B.
HOWEVER, Videorama's presence does not explain why the citizens of Centerville rented 10,000 fewer videos.
The true reason for the 10,000 fewer video rentals lies in the fact that Videorama SOLD 4000 videos AND, as answer choice E suggests, the video owners lend out videos to friends who would have rented those same videos.
I hope that helps.
Cheers,
Brent
Brent Hanneson - Creator of GMATPrepNow.com
-
aditya8062
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 774
- Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:32 am
- Thanked: 46 times
- Followed by:14 members
great !! got it . Thanks
i must say GMAC makes impeccable argument structure !!
now i realize that had the argument been :
Jennifer: Video rental outlet X 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?
THEN A would have been a contender
am i right ?
because if i am right then i guess this is the way i interpreted it firstly. kudos to GMAC for creating such a trap !!!
i must say GMAC makes impeccable argument structure !!
now i realize that had the argument been :
Jennifer: Video rental outlet X 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?
THEN A would have been a contender
am i right ?
because if i am right then i guess this is the way i interpreted it firstly. kudos to GMAC for creating such a trap !!!
GMAT/MBA Expert
-
Brent@GMATPrepNow
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 16207
- Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:26 pm
- Location: Vancouver, BC
- Thanked: 5254 times
- Followed by:1268 members
- GMAT Score:770
Yes, then A would be a contenderaditya8062 wrote:great !! got it . Thanks
i must say GMAC makes impeccable argument structure !!
now i realize that had the argument been :
Jennifer: Video rental outlet X 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?
THEN A would have been a contender
am i right ?
because if i am right then i guess this is the way i interpreted it firstly. kudos to GMAC for creating such a trap !!!
Cheers,
Brent
Brent Hanneson - Creator of GMATPrepNow.com
-
GMATGuruNY
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 15539
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 12:04 pm
- Location: New York, NY
- Thanked: 13060 times
- Followed by:1906 members
- GMAT Score:790
I received a PM requesting that I comment.aditya8062 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?
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.
my concern: why A cannot be the answer here?. i agree that statement in option A can fluctuate either ways,i.e.,we might have a situation in which rented videos are 4001 and sold videos are 4000 ,thereby the total amounting to 8001 and hence it might not explain the deficit of 10,000. however we can also have a situation in which rented videos are 6000 and sold videos are 4000,there by accounting a deficit of 10,000.
if someone discards option A stating that option A can give fluctuating results then the same logic can also be applied to discard option E,i.e., people who own videos might not just rent as much as to account the deficit of 10,000?
thanks and regards
Brad's conclusion:
The opening of Videorama CANNOT BE entirely responsible for the decrease in the total number of rentals.
To weaken Brad's conclusion, the correct answer will explain how the opening of Videorama COULD BE entirely responsible for the decrease in the total number of rentals.
Answer choice E: People who own videos frequently loan them to their friends.
Implication:
The 4000 videos sold by Videorama were frequently loaned to friends, with the result that friends did not have to rent these videos -- explaining how the opening of Videorama COULD BE entirely responsible for the decrease in the total number of rentals.
The correct answer is E.
Here, Videorama rents out 6000 videos -- CONTRIBUTING to the total number of rentals in Centerville.We can also have a situation in which rented videos are 6000 and sold videos are 4000, there by accounting a deficit of 10,000.
So why did the total number of rentals decrease by 10,000?
This set of data does not offer an explanation.
Private tutor exclusively for the GMAT and GRE, with over 20 years of experience.
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
Followed here and elsewhere by over 1900 test-takers.
I have worked with students based in the US, Australia, Taiwan, China, Tajikistan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia -- a long list of countries.
My students have been admitted to HBS, CBS, Tuck, Yale, Stern, Fuqua -- a long list of top programs.
As a tutor, I don't simply teach you how I would approach problems.
I unlock the best way for YOU to solve problems.
For more information, please email me (Mitch Hunt) at [email protected].
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3
-
aditya8062
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 774
- Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2012 4:32 am
- Thanked: 46 times
- Followed by:14 members
-
Gurpreet singh
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:17 pm
- Thanked: 1 times
Jennifer is saying videorama is responsible for the decline, while as per brad their is some other reason for the decline.
If we select E are we not strengthening the argument given by Brad?
If we select E are we not strengthening the argument given by Brad?
