Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville (PREP CR)

[readymmbee]

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.

I chose A. OA is E. How to make the judgement between A and E? Thanks.

[carole.okigbo]

Experts please explain...many thanks

[kartik1979]

hi

the arguments says that overall in Centerville ( including Videorama) the video rentals have declined

so if A is right overall video rentals will not be so low ( 10000-4000) 6000 rentals would still be shared among stores

E attacks this above theory saying that people who bought it circulated it among their friends hence overall rentals were low

[RonPurewal]

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.

I chose A. OA is E. How to make the judgement between A and E? Thanks.

as with all other Weaken problems, you should SIMPLIFY THE ARGUMENT first.

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.

(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.

[sandeep.19+man]

Whoa! How is (A) irrelevant

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

Sold = 4000
Rented = 4001

Since 8001 < 10000, (A) doesnt necessarily weaken the CR.

(E) is slightly better here but doesnt offer anything concrete. Should we read option (E) as
ALL people who own videos frequently loan them to their friends?

Thank you

[vinversa]

It is surpirising why B is not the correct answer

(B) In 1994 two new outlets that rent but that do not sell videos opened in Centerville.

These two new outlets that rent could have accounted for 6000 rentals. 6000 + 4000 (from Videorama) = 10000

[mschwrtz]

Careful vinversa, B doesn't give any reason that video rentals in this town should have declined. It might explain why rentals at existing stores declined when the new stores opened, but...

1) The prompt says that sales in the whole town declined, not that sales in existing stores declined.
2) B doesn't do anything to undermine Brad's argument. Did you suppose that B provided a causal account alternative to Brad's? But new rental outlets don't obviously account for a reduction in rentals

[mschwrtz]

sandeep, see my reply immediately above. Perhaps you, too, misunderstood the reduction in rentals. It is not a reduction in rentals from existing stores, but in rentals in this town. Every rental that Videorama makes is a rental in this town.

[adhithya2007]

i agree with sandeep
both (a) and (e) do not concretely answer the question as to how the 10000rentals declined.So,how do we choose
from (E) how can we say that the loaning around was responsible for decline in exactly 10000 rentals

[jnelson0612]

i agree with sandeep
both (a) and (e) do not concretely answer the question as to how the 10000rentals declined.So,how do we choose
from (E) how can we say that the loaning around was responsible for decline in exactly 10000 rentals

Did you read Michael's explanation above? If not, please take a look.

[sumit_pune]

I too mistook for A . ( see i am using correct idiom here)

but just got insight that A cant be the Answer why ?

Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000 fewer video rentals in 1994 than in 1993. The decline in rentals was ...

so the question is about decline in RENTAL business , and not about selling , between A & E

(A) In 1994 Videorama rented out more videos than it sold.
in this case rented video may be from 4001 to 4001+

(E) People who own videos frequently loan them to their friends.
This is best , as it say frequently ......

[RonPurewal]

i agree with sandeep
both (a) and (e) do not concretely answer the question as to how the 10000rentals declined.So,how do we choose
from (E) how can we say that the loaning around was responsible for decline in exactly 10000 rentals

the fact that you don't "concretely answer the question" is actually the entire point of strengthen/weaken questions!
that is why there are so many of these questions on this test: gmac wants to make sure that candidates can think clearly in terms of what is the most reasonable or most likely interpretation of a given fact, WITHOUT needing hard proof.

this is often frustrating for people from highly technical/scientific/mathematical backgrounds, but, given that this is a test for future business managers (very little in business is ever concretely proved!), it makes perfect sense why the test would place an emphasis on such things.

[omerrauf]

I think there is a very subtle nuisance in the argument that leads directly to E.

"Videorama, the first and only video rental outlet in the area that, in addition to renting videos, also sold them cheaply"

Read it carefully. So we have a clue there in "sold them cheaply"

Now Brad says there must be another explanation, an explanation that Videorama is not responsible.

Jennifer says: in short that Videorama is responsible.

We should therefore look for clues that make Videorama primarily responsible for the decline. Remember Videorama also rents to its part of the 10,000 figure.

Now imagine this. 4000 people go to Videorama and decide that they would buy the movie instead. Still does not account for the 10,000. Now these 4,000 share it with friends and there you have the reason for the 10,000 decline. So in effect just because Videorama was selling cheap videos, it contributed to the overall decline. Hence it is primarily because of Videorama and so Jennifer's conclusion is correct that Videorama is responsible.

I hope that clears any doubt.

[omerrauf]

Also bear in mind that the question gives you a second clue. "Videorama is the first, and only, rental store that also sells videos"

Together with the above explanation, I think E is a very distinct and clear choice.

Perfect CR question !

[RonPurewal]

omerrauf, good explanations.