Although video game sales have increased steadily over the past 3 year

A. Most people 17 years old or older have never purchased a video game.
This choice indicates that the market for video game is still potential to boost up the sale. Keep this choice.

B. Video game rentals have declined over the past 3 years.
This choice is irrelevant to the argument.

C. New technology will undoubtedly make entirely new entertainment options available over the next 10 years.
"available" is irrelevant to "decline"

D. The number of different types of video games available is unlikely to decrease in the near future.
The number of different types of video games is irrelevant to the argument.

E. Most of the people who have purchased video games over the past 3 years are over the age of 16
This choice directly attacks the argument. This choice indicates that people who are over the age of 16 have mainly contributed to the steadily increase of video game sales. Hence, the decrease in the number of people who are in the age of 13 to 16 won't make any significant influence on the video game sales.

Compared to A, E is better. Hence, E is the answer.

Hi Experts GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo

Can anyone please help to identify main conclusion here?

The conclusion is that we can expect a reversal of this trend (a steady increase in video game sales) in the very near future.

I hope that helps!

Counter-Premise: Although video game sales have increased steadily over the past 3 years -

Conclusion: we can expect a reversal of this trend in the very near future.

[And why would that happen?]

Premise: Historically, over three-quarters of video games sold have been purchased by people from 13 to 16 years of age, and the number of people in this age group is expected to decline steadily over the next 10 years.

[Thus the sale should decrease as number of people in the age group 13 to 16 is expected to decrease]

Pre-thinking: We need to find reasons like - more games suited for players above 16 years of age is about to come in the market, which we know sells well, so sale won't decline. OR some other reasons, which shows that though in the past people in the age group 13 to 16 used to purchase more, now the trend is changing.

Keeping these ideas in mind, let us look at the options.

Which one of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument?

A. Most people 17 years old or older have never purchased a video game.
[This kind of strengthens the argument, instead of weakening it - Eliminated.]

B. Video game rentals have declined over the past 3 years.
[Out of Scope: Rentals are not in question here.]

C. New technology will undoubtedly make entirely new entertainment options available over the next 10 years.
[Out of Scope: We are interested in weakening the argument that the sale will decline. We are not looking for alternative sources of entertainment.]

D. The number of different types of video games available is unlikely to decrease in the near future.
[So What?? This does not help us in deciding if the sale would increase or decrease! - Eliminated]

E. Most of the people who have purchased video games over the past 3 years are over the age of 16
[Now this gives us a reason that can weaken the argument. If people over the age of 16 have been buying games, then that means even if age group of 13 to 16 declines, the sale won't go down, instead it might even go up! Thus, this is the correct answer.]

A is irrelevant because of two reasons:
1) The segment that the argument and hence the answer focuses on is 13-16 years old.
2) Statement A does not tell the prospects i.e. whether this group will buy or not.



Option E is the best choice.

I answered E too, but anyone here can explain why E seems to contradict the premise of "over three quarters"?

Hi septwibowo ,
The historical data might include data for a period significantly more than 3 years .
The current year is 2017 and historical data in the survey is from 2007-2017. In the period 2007-2014, most of the buyers of video games were children in the age 13-16.
So, in a way E does not contradict the premise as we DON'T know from which exact period the historical data is from.
E -- It means that historical trends are changing and data from last 3 years follows a different trend. --> More and more people over the age of 16 are buying video games
Historical data is not representative of recent trends in past 3 years.

Another way to weaken the argument can be that the average number of games bought by consumers in the age group 13-16 will increase significantly over next 10 years.

Hope this helps!!

AjiteshArun ,mikemcgarry ,VeritasPrepKarishma ,sayantanc2k ,GMATNinja , experts-- Can you please validate my reasoning ?

I agree. We should view the period referenced by historically as being significantly longer than (the last) three years.

Thanks Skywalker18 for the explanation! I think you said it perfectly here: "E -- It means that historical trends are changing and data from last 3 years follows a different trend. --> More and more people over the age of 16 are buying video games".

We are told that video game sales have increased steadily over the past 3 years. Choice (E) suggests that much of that increase came from people over the age of 16. In that case, the INCREASE in sales to people over 16 might make up for the potential decrease in sales to people from 13 to 16 years of age.

I interpreted option E as the people who purchased video games were under the age of 16 at the time of purchase. In other words, they are NOW over the age of 16.

Is that incorrect?

Yes, the wording of option (E) should have been better. Official questions do not have this ambiguity.

Although video game sales have increased steadily over the past 3 years, we can expect a reversal of this trend in the very near future. Historically, over three quarters of video games sold have been purchased by people from 13 to 16 years of age, and the number of people in this age group is expected to decline steadily over the next 10 years.

Which one of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the argument?

Analysis: weaken the argument
Cause ----> effect
13-16 age(who purchases games historically) group ppl will decrease-->video game sales will decrease
If we can show that some other group will buy to maintain the purchase level, then it will weaken the argument

(A) Most people 17 years old or older have never purchased a video game. --> doesn't weaken
(B) Video game rentals have declined over the past 3 years. --> slightly strengthen
(C) New technology will undoubtedly make entirely new entertainment options available over the next 10 years. --> "new entertainment options" can decrease video game purchase
(D) The number of different types of video games available is unlikely to decrease in the near future. --> but if the buyers decrease, the video game purchase may decrease
(E) Most of the people who have purchased video games over the past 3 years are over the age of 16. --> correct: align w/ analysis

I eliminated (e) because according to me it goes against/refutes the facts given in the argument and this is not allowed in CR. Can anybody elaborate on this.

Thank you.

This is a common misconception I see while tutoring people in CR. The answer choices never really dispute the information given in the passage. If they seem too, you're probably not parsing the claims in the argument carefully enough. The answer choices won't be wrong simply by directly contradicting the argument. Choice E should have been worded more clearly, but it's saying that those 13-16 year olds who purchased so many games have now aged, and perhaps they will still be the avid video game purchasers. It doesn't contradict be argument because a few years ago they were in this age group purchasing all of the video games.

Here is an example of a problem where people often mistakenly think that an answer choice contradicts the stem:


Fast-food restaurants make up 45 percent of all restaurants in Cantaria. Customers at these restaurants tend to be young; in fact, studies have shown that the older people get, the less likely they are to eat in fast-food restaurants. Since the average age of the Canatrian population is gradually rising and will continue to do so, the number of fast-food restaurants is likely to decrease.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Fast-food restaurants in Canatria are getting bigger, so each one can serve more customers.

(B) Some older people eat at fast-food restaurants more frequently than the average young person. ((some people take this to be a contradiction of the fact in the argument that younger people eat more fast food in general. It didn't say that. It was just an average. This is a wrong answer choice but it's not because it contradicts anything in the argument))

(C) Many people who rarely eat in fast-food restaurants nevertheless eat regularly in restaurants.

(D) The overall population of Canatria is growing steadily.

(E) As the population of Canatria gets older, more people are eating at home.

Hi arpitkaushik96,

I am happy to help. (E) isn't contradicting the premises, as this option talks about what has been true over the last 3 years, whereas the passage talks about the historical trend.