• NEW! FREE Beat The GMAT Quizzes
    NEW! FREE Beat The GMAT Quizzes
    NEW! FREE Beat The GMAT Quizzes
    Hundreds of Questions Highly Detailed Reporting Expert Explanations TAKE A FREE GMAT QUIZ
  • 7 CATs FREE!
    If you earn 100 Forum Points

    Engage in the Beat The GMAT forums to earn
    100 points for $49 worth of Veritas practice GMATs FREE

    Veritas Prep
    VERITAS PRACTICE GMAT EXAMS
    Earn 10 Points Per Post
    Earn 10 Points Per Thanks
    Earn 10 Points Per Upvote
    REDEEM NOW

Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together

This topic has 5 expert replies and 4 member replies

Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together

Post
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

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag

GMAT/MBA Expert

Post
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.

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.

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
Use our video course along with Beat The GMAT's free 60-Day Study Guide

Sign up for our free Question of the Day emails
And check out all of our free resources

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
GMAT Prep Now's comprehensive video course can be used in conjunction with Beat The GMAT’s FREE 60-Day Study Guide and reach your target score in 2 months!
Legendary Member Default Avatar
Joined
23 Jan 2012
Posted:
774 messages
Followed by:
14 members
Upvotes:
46
Post
thanks Brent
i accept this point:
Quote:
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.
the fact that people in this city rented fewer than 10000 videos is attributed to the opening of this new video center
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

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag

GMAT/MBA Expert

Post
aditya8062 wrote:
thanks Brent
i accept this point:
Quote:
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.
the fact that people in this city rented fewer than 10000 videos is attributed to the opening of this new video center
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
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.

In other words, the 6000 video rentals would not account for anything.

Cheers,
Brent

_________________
Brent Hanneson – Creator of GMATPrepNow.com
Use our video course along with Beat The GMAT's free 60-Day Study Guide

Sign up for our free Question of the Day emails
And check out all of our free resources

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
GMAT Prep Now's comprehensive video course can be used in conjunction with Beat The GMAT’s FREE 60-Day Study Guide and reach your target score in 2 months!

GMAT/MBA Expert

Post
aditya8062 wrote:
thanks Brent
i accept this point:
Quote:
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.
the fact that people in this city rented fewer than 10000 videos is attributed to the opening of this new video center
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
Here's another way to look at it.
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
Use our video course along with Beat The GMAT's free 60-Day Study Guide

Sign up for our free Question of the Day emails
And check out all of our free resources

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
GMAT Prep Now's comprehensive video course can be used in conjunction with Beat The GMAT’s FREE 60-Day Study Guide and reach your target score in 2 months!
Legendary Member Default Avatar
Joined
23 Jan 2012
Posted:
774 messages
Followed by:
14 members
Upvotes:
46
Post
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 !!!

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag

GMAT/MBA Expert

Post
aditya8062 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 !!!
Yes, then A would be a contender Smile

Cheers,
Brent

_________________
Brent Hanneson – Creator of GMATPrepNow.com
Use our video course along with Beat The GMAT's free 60-Day Study Guide

Sign up for our free Question of the Day emails
And check out all of our free resources

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
GMAT Prep Now's comprehensive video course can be used in conjunction with Beat The GMAT’s FREE 60-Day Study Guide and reach your target score in 2 months!

GMAT/MBA Expert

Post
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
I received a PM requesting that I comment.

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.

Quote:
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.
Here, Videorama rents out 6000 videos -- CONTRIBUTING to the total number of rentals in Centerville.
So why did the total number of rentals decrease by 10,000?
This set of data does not offer an explanation.

_________________
Mitch Hunt
Private Tutor for the GMAT and GRE
GMATGuruNY@gmail.com

If you find one of my posts helpful, please take a moment to click on the "UPVOTE" icon.

Available for tutoring in NYC and long-distance.
For more information, please email me at GMATGuruNY@gmail.com.
Student Review #1
Student Review #2
Student Review #3

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Free GMAT Practice Test How can you improve your test score if you don't know your baseline score? Take a free online practice exam. Get started on achieving your dream score today! Sign up now.
Legendary Member Default Avatar
Joined
23 Jan 2012
Posted:
774 messages
Followed by:
14 members
Upvotes:
46
Post
thanks a lot GURU . i understand as where i had gone wrong
thank you all
regards

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts Default Avatar
Joined
28 Apr 2016
Posted:
38 messages
Upvotes:
1
Post
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?

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
  • e-gmat Exclusive Offer
    Get 300+ Practice Questions
    25 Video lessons and 6 Webinars for FREE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    e-gmat Exclusive Offer
  • EMPOWERgmat Slider
    1 Hour Free
    BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    EMPOWERgmat Slider
  • Magoosh
    Magoosh
    Study with Magoosh GMAT prep

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Magoosh
  • Kaplan Test Prep
    Free Practice Test & Review
    How would you score if you took the GMAT

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Kaplan Test Prep
  • The Princeton Review
    FREE GMAT Exam
    Know how you'd score today for $0

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    The Princeton Review
  • Economist Test Prep
    Free Trial & Practice Exam
    BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Economist Test Prep
  • PrepScholar GMAT
    5 Day FREE Trial
    Study Smarter, Not Harder

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    PrepScholar GMAT
  • Target Test Prep
    5-Day Free Trial
    5-day free, full-access trial TTP Quant

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Target Test Prep
  • Varsity Tutors
    Award-winning private GMAT tutoring
    Register now and save up to $200

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Varsity Tutors
  • Veritas Prep
    Free Veritas GMAT Class
    Experience Lesson 1 Live Free

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Veritas Prep

Top First Responders*

1 Jay@ManhattanReview 66 first replies
2 fskilnik@GMATH 50 first replies
3 Brent@GMATPrepNow 49 first replies
4 GMATGuruNY 32 first replies
5 Rich.C@EMPOWERgma... 26 first replies
* Only counts replies to topics started in last 30 days
See More Top Beat The GMAT Members

Most Active Experts

1 image description fskilnik@GMATH

GMATH Teacher

109 posts
2 image description Brent@GMATPrepNow

GMAT Prep Now Teacher

97 posts
3 image description Max@Math Revolution

Math Revolution

94 posts
4 image description Jay@ManhattanReview

Manhattan Review

83 posts
5 image description GMATGuruNY

The Princeton Review Teacher

78 posts
See More Top Beat The GMAT Experts