Weird video rental question

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 5:10 pm
Location: San Francisco

Weird video rental question

by snapplesf » Fri Mar 23, 2007 10:28 am
Source - GMATPrep
-----------------------------------

Jen: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10, 000 fewer vides rentals in 1994 than in 1993. The decline was probably due almost entirely to the Feburary 1994 opening of Videorama, the first and only video rental outlet in the area, that in addition to renting videos sold them cheaply.

Brad: There must be another explanation: as you said, the decline was on the order of 10,000 rentals. Yet Videorama sold on 4000 videos in 1994.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the force of the objecton that Brad presents to Jen's explanation.

a) In 1994, Videorama rented out more videos than it sold
b) In 1994 two new outlets that rent but do not sell videso opened in Centerville
c) Most of the video outlets in Centerville rent videos at a discount on certain nights of the week
d) People often buy videos of movies they have previously seen in a theater
e) People who own videos frequently loan them to their friends.




See answer below









Ans - E
I agree that e) is the best of the worst answers, but its such a stretch and nothing says that e) started happening in 1994 and wasn't happening in 1993.

Am I missing something or folks find this a rather weak question as well ?
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2228
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:28 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada
Thanked: 639 times
Followed by:694 members
GMAT Score:780

by Stacey Koprince » Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:25 pm
The argument says that the store opened in 1994 and it is the "first and only" that sells videos. Therefore, selling videos did only start in 1994 (in Centerville anyway) and this is how those 4,000 sold could translate into 10,000 fewer rentals in the same year.
Please note: I do not use the Private Messaging system! I will not see any PMs that you send to me!!

Stacey Koprince
GMAT Instructor
Director of Online Community
Manhattan GMAT

Contributor to Beat The GMAT!

Learn more about me

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:34 pm

by rayman6 » Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:14 pm
Why isn't the answer A? Since Videorama also rented out some more videos, that might explain why selling 4000 videos can translate into 10,000 fewer videos for the year.

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2228
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:28 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada
Thanked: 639 times
Followed by:694 members
GMAT Score:780

by Stacey Koprince » Wed Jun 20, 2007 1:57 pm
The 10,000 fewer rentals figure includes Videorama's rentals.

So, in 1994, there were 10,000 fewer rentals when combining ALL stores' rentals, including Videorama's. No matter how many Videorama rented out, the combined figure is still the same: there was a 10,000-unit drop in rentals for the year.

The 4,000 sold by Videorama possibly explains the first 4,000 of the 10,000 fewer rented. But the number that Videorama DID rent out doesn't explain the remaining 6,000-unit DROP in rentals - no matter what that number is.
Please note: I do not use the Private Messaging system! I will not see any PMs that you send to me!!

Stacey Koprince
GMAT Instructor
Director of Online Community
Manhattan GMAT

Contributor to Beat The GMAT!

Learn more about me

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:34 pm

by rayman6 » Wed Jun 20, 2007 3:06 pm
You are right, I didn't read the question carefuly. Thats seems to be one of my major problems right now.

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:46 am
Thanked: 27 times
GMAT Score:570

by reply2spg » Thu Jul 29, 2010 4:12 am
I didn't get this. Can somebody please explain?
Sudhanshu
(have lot of things to learn from all of you)

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2228
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:28 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada
Thanked: 639 times
Followed by:694 members
GMAT Score:780

by Stacey Koprince » Fri Jul 30, 2010 1:25 pm
What didn't you get? What did you get? Explicitly - spell out exactly what you do understand and ask specific questions about what you don't understand. That's how you're actually going to learn here. :)

Read this article:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/2010/05/ ... the-forums
Please note: I do not use the Private Messaging system! I will not see any PMs that you send to me!!

Stacey Koprince
GMAT Instructor
Director of Online Community
Manhattan GMAT

Contributor to Beat The GMAT!

Learn more about me

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1172
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:20 pm
Thanked: 74 times
Followed by:4 members

by uwhusky » Fri Jul 30, 2010 1:48 pm
"I don't get it." - Josh (Tom Hanks) in Big.
Yep.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:36 am
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:1 members

by Prashant Ranjan » Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:20 pm
Stacey's explanation is awesome!!! Kudos to her.

I would try to further breakdown what Stacey has said for benefits of pupil [like me :)]
Stacey:The 10,000 fewer rentals figure includes Videorama's rentals.
This is a very important fact. The argument says that video rentals of the whole town declined in 1994 and not that the video rentals of only video outlets other than Videorama's declined.
Stacey: "The 4,000 sold by Videorama possibly explains the first 4,000 of the 10,000 fewer rented. But the number that Videorama DID rent out doesn't explain the remaining 6,000-unit DROP in rentals - no matter what that number is."
This is because even if Videorama rented out videos all they should have done was to reduce the 6000 unexplained declined video rentals. Since Videorama was included in ALL the video outlets therefore any video outlet (including Videorama) renting out videos should only reduce the decline. This can be only explained by the fact that there was something that didn't contribute either to buying the videos from outlets or renting the videos from the outlets. And the answer to this perplex question is provided by (E).

A very beautiful revelation in this argument is what Stacey has already said above "No matter how many videos Videorama's would have rented, it still wouldn't explain the 6000 fewer rentals in '94". This is because Videorama's rentals are already included in the video rentals of the whole town.

This is a very beautiful question and a warning for us to read the argument very carefully with all senses open :)

Thanks
Prashant