shikhar 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.
Hi,
The discussion so far has been very good.
The only confusion visible is between options A and E.
Let's first follow our standard approach for the answer:
Brad's argument is that opening of Videorama could not be the explanation for decline in rentals since Videorama sold only 4000 videos against a total decline of 10,000 video rentals.
Prethinking Assumption:Now, if we try to prethink the assumption in Brad's argument, it looks like this: one video sold should lead to a decline of one (nearly) video rental.
Prethinking Weakener:Now, a weakener is something which weakens the assumption. Thus, a weakener could be like:
Some movies are rented more than once to the same person in a year. (If this is true, then people who buy these videos will not rent. Thus, every purchase would lead to twice or thrice the amount of decline in rentals)
Other weakener could be the one stated in option E. This statement means that every video purchase should lead to multiple times decline in the number of video rentals.
Therefore, E is the correct answer choice.
Now, coming to option A, please note that it is clearly stated the Videorama is located in the area. Thus, any video rentals by Videorama are counted in the figure for the area. Therefore, the number of video rentals by Videorama does not affect Brad's argument.
Hope this helps
Critical Reasoning questions are also asked in the new IR section of GMAT. Click on the below image to access a
critical reasoning IR question with detailed approach to such questions.
Thanks,
Chiranjeev