ADhanjal
Hi
GMATNinja KarishmaB,
Can I say that (A) is trying to explain a paradox in the given situation and (E) is the one actually weakening Brad's objection?
(A) doesn't actually explain anything because we don't know the TOTAL number of video rentals handled each year.
Instead, we only know the difference. Maybe Videorama handled 1,000 rentals, maybe it handled 10,000 rentals. Regardless, we have no idea how that number compares to the total number of video rentals handled in Centerville in 1994.
Also, we're told that Videorama is "in the area" of Centerville, but it's unclear whether Videorama is located
in Centerville or simply
near Centerville. We know that total rentals in Centerville decreased by 10,000 in 1994. So, for example, maybe there were 60,000 rentals in 1993 and only 50,000 in 1994. If Videorama is
in Centerville, then it doesn't matter how many of the 50,000 were handled by Videorama and (A) is irrelevant.
The question still remains: why did the total decrease by 10,000 even though Videorama only sold 4,000 cheap videos?
IF Videorama is not considered part of Centerville and IF rentals handled by Videorama accounted for a large portion of the total rentals in the area, then that could certainly explain the decrease and thus strengthen Brad's argument (by showing that there is another explanation aside from Jennifer's).
But we can't make those assumptions because we don't know the total numbers. Without more information, we can't say that (A) strengthens, weakens, or explains anything at all.