Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville (PREP CR)

[peter_griffin]

Yeah , This was confusing . I got it wrong on the 1st attempt.

This is how i analysed it wen i got it right the 2nd time.

Jenifer: Centreville has witnessed a drop of 10K video rentals. -> main reason videorama (for some reason fururama popped in my head wen i read this .. besides the point) .

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

To weaken brads claim , we shud basicially say .. THERE IS NO OTHER EXPLANATION AND THE DROP IS INDEED BCOS OF THE SELLING ONLY .

e) shows the pronounced effect of selling .. 1 copy is distriibuted among multiple ppl

[jlucero]

To weaken brads claim , we shud basicially say .. THERE IS NO OTHER EXPLANATION AND THE DROP IS INDEED BCOS OF THE SELLING ONLY .

e) shows the pronounced effect of selling .. 1 copy is distriibuted among multiple ppl

You're correct here, I just would add:

THERE IS NO OTHER EXPLANATION (necessary) AND THE DROP IS INDEED BCOS OF THE SELLING ONLY .

[quocvunguyendo]

Jennifer mentioned Videorama (either sell or rent videos) as the reason behind the dropped video rentals of 10000 btw 1994 & 1993. However, Brad showed that Videorama only sold 4000 in 1994 (<10000) and thus, there must be another explanation for the decrease.

The correct ans must explain how the 4000 sold can lead to the drop of 10000 in rental

A,C,D) No impact
B) Opp ans
E) Correct. As those who bought videos rent them to friends, the friends would not need to rent as they did previously => drop in rental

[tim]

Please let us know if you have a question here.

[aditya8062]

Dear RON
my concern is regarding option A
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?
can u please explain as what am i missing as official answer cannot be wrong

thanks and regards

[NL]

to WEAKEN brad's objection, you have to COME UP WITH A WAY FOR 4000 SALES TO CANCEL OUT 10,000 RENTALS.

(a) is irrelevant to this issue.

(e) provides a perfect reason why the 4000 sales could, indeed, compensate for the 10,000 rentals: if the sold videos are loaned around, then each of them could cancel out multiple rentals.

--> This is ...sharp!

Initially, I thought there are 2 ways to come up with a clue to choose the answer:

- First way, protect Jennifer’s point: Vidieorama is responsible for the decline of rental videos in Centerville.
- Second way, weaken Brad’s point directly: sales vs. rentals.
But re-read the question again, I see holding the second clue is much more effective to see the correct answer.

Anyway, do you have a thought of the first point (first way) any time?

[RonPurewal]

- First way, protect Jennifer’s point: Vidieorama is responsible for the decline of rental videos in Centerville.

This just gives you another reason to eliminate choice A"”which makes exactly the opposite point.

According to choice A, rentals were Videorama's primary business! This point is definitely not on Jennifer's side of the fence.

[NL]

Genius brain vs. normal brain.

[RonPurewal]

Genius brain vs. normal brain.

Most certainly not.

Just imagine a conversation involving this situation. Conveniently, there's already a "Jennifer", so all you have to do is imagine that you're having a conversation with her.

In any normal conversation between normal people (i.e., not "genius brain" people), it will be immediately clear that this point goes against Jennifer.

The only reasons why CR strengthen/weaken problems are harder than everyday conversations are...
... 1/ they appear in the form of dense, formal text, which is much harder to understand than casual spoken dialogue;
... 2/ people approach them as though they were "academic problems""”a point of view that actually makes it impossible to comprehend them in the necessary way.

If you can get these things to come alive in your head as dialogues (or else as situations in which YOU have a personal stake), you'll find it pretty easy to see how most of them are affected by anything in the choices.

[Crisc419]

after reading this question for several times, i thought i figure out why choice A is wrong.

the argument says: " Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000 fewer video rentals in 1994 than in 1993. "

Videorama is one of the stores in Centerville, therefore, " the fewer video rentals" actually have included the number of video rental from Videorama. so, choice A is wrong.


hope instructor could confirm my reasoning.

but i still thought this reasoning is so subtle that i could not figure out during the test.

how we should do during the test.

[RonPurewal]

i suspect you are not doing enough thinking "up-front" (= BEFORE you look at the answer choices).

if you had thought through the argument to the extent described in the third post of this thread...

here's the simplified argument:

J: The loss of 10,000 rentals was all Videorama's fault.
B: That's not possible, since Videorama only sold 4000 videos.

in other words, brad's objection is based on the fact that 4000 is a smaller number than 10,000.

to WEAKEN brad's objection, you have to COME UP WITH A WAY FOR 4000 SALES TO CANCEL OUT 10,000 RENTALS.

...then you'd realize that choice A isn't relevant, since choice A doesn't provide any concrete reason why a smaller number of sales could cancel out a larger number of rentals.
choice E, on the other hand, does.

always SET A CONCRETE STANDARD FOR A CORRECT ANSWER •BEFORE• looking through the choices!

[Crisc419]

i suspect you are not doing enough thinking "up-front" (= BEFORE you look at the answer choices).

if you had thought through the argument to the extent described in the third post of this thread...

here's the simplified argument:

J: The loss of 10,000 rentals was all Videorama's fault.
B: That's not possible, since Videorama only sold 4000 videos.

in other words, brad's objection is based on the fact that 4000 is a smaller number than 10,000.

to WEAKEN brad's objection, you have to COME UP WITH A WAY FOR 4000 SALES TO CANCEL OUT 10,000 RENTALS.

...then you'd realize that choice A isn't relevant, since choice A doesn't provide any concrete reason why a smaller number of sales could cancel out a larger number of rentals.
choice E, on the other hand, does.

always SET A CONCRETE STANDARD FOR A CORRECT ANSWER •BEFORE• looking through the choices!

sorry, sir, i still feel confused and want to figure this out.

when we weaken some argument, one type of the correct anwsers is to introduce new information which does not have direct relation with the reason stated by the author and which is omitted by him/her.

why here we should use the reason used by the author to explain the situation, and why we cannot introduce some new information that is overlooked (wrongly) by the author.


thanks very much

Cris

[RonPurewal]

sorry, that language is too abstract for me.

for this problem, what i've posted above is my best attempt at an explanation. if it still doesn't make sense, you should just walk away from this one for a few weeks, and perhaps come back to it later.