Fearing competition from stores that rent video games for home use

I need help. I realy cofused here, where I can not find the conclusion and the eviendes

Although in this question, the conclusion and premise can be stated as below, understanding the question itself is the most important thing.

Conclusion: Fearing competition from stores that rent video games for home use, owners of stores that sell video games lobbied for protective legislation.
Premise: Citing as a precedent legislation that postpones home film rentals until one year after general release to theaters, the video sellers proposed as an equitable solution a plan that would postpone rental of any video game until it had been available for sale for one year.

Which of the following, if true, would support an objection by owners of video rental stores that the fairness of the proposed legislation is not supported by the precedent cited? The question asks you to find an option that will support the owners of the video RENTAL stores. That means we need an option that shows that the film rental example will not work in this situation

A)Although the daily rental fee for home use of films is generally the same as that for video games, the average rental period for a video game is longer than that for a film. - Out of scope
B)Film rentals for home use tend to particularly strong during the first year after a film has been made available for both sale and rental at video rental stores. - weakens
C)Most people are interested in playing only the latest video games and tend to find video games that have been available for over a year unappealing whether they have played them before or not, whereas films maintain their appeal far longer after their release. - Correct
D)People who rent video games tend to play them by themselves, whereas people who rent films invite friends and neighbors to watch. - Out of scope
E)A slight decline in revenues from films that have been recently released in theaters has been attributed to the growing market for rentals of films for home use. - Out of scope

Hope this helps

We need to find the option that supports the case of the Rental stores and say that the rental option that works for the movies will not work for the games.

Option C does just the same by saying that the people are not interested a game which is one year old. Hence by the time, the rental stores will have the permission to rent the games, they will become obsolete.

All the other options do not deal with the problem at hand.

Correct option: C

Answer C nails it even though it was somewhat hard to follow the stimulus. I guess thats why this is a lower level question XD

Option C correctly compares the appeal of both movies and video games for the first year after release

I'm confused with A. I think it could make sense.

the rental period for video game is longer than for film and the daily cost is the same, meaning the total rental cost for renting video game is higher than that for renting film. Therefore, the competition from rental store to sell store in video game industry is not as high as that in film industry, an objection to the cited precedent.

Is there anything wrong with my thought? Or I just made too much assumption?

Option D instead is a weakener. It will weaken the force of objection by owners of video rental stores.
If movies are watched by larger crowd, then renting movies makes sense.
If rented games are played by just one, then others may still purchase the video game.
Option D is not as good as option C

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.