GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 12 Dec 2018, 08:33

# R1 Admission Decisions:

CMU Tepper in Calling R1 Admits   |  Kellogg Calls are Expected Shortly

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

## Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in December
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
2526272829301
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
303112345
Open Detailed Calendar
• ### The winning strategy for 700+ on the GMAT

December 13, 2018

December 13, 2018

08:00 AM PST

09:00 AM PST

What people who reach the high 700's do differently? We're going to share insights, tips and strategies from data we collected on over 50,000 students who used examPAL.
• ### GMATbuster's Weekly GMAT Quant Quiz, Tomorrow, Saturday at 9 AM PST

December 14, 2018

December 14, 2018

09:00 AM PST

10:00 AM PST

10 Questions will be posted on the forum and we will post a reply in this Topic with a link to each question. There are prizes for the winners.

# Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

SVP
Joined: 14 Apr 2009
Posts: 2277
Location: New York, NY
Re: Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Aug 2012, 12:45
3
1
It's really important to understand what DIRECTION you should be taking for this question.

We want to weaken Brad's argument. Brad was arguing against Jennifer --> essentially we are trying to find something that supports Jennifer's case.

Jennifer says: Decline is due to Videorama
Brad says: No, that's not true, something else is responsible

To weaken Brad's claim, we almost have to reaffirm that the decline is due to Videorama. We just need a more clear way to explain it.

Jennifer's claim can still be valid if we fill in some of the holes. Brad pointed out one of the holes, which was that Videorama only sold 4000 videos and there's a gap in order to reach the 10,000 decline in video rentals.

Now what can explain the gap?

(E) does the best job because if for every 1 video sold that cannibalized 2, 3 or more video rentals, than the cannibalization effect could be far in excess of 10,000 video rentals.

(A) also helps explain the gap but it's not strong enough. If Videorama rented out more than it sold, it's possible that it sold 4,000 and it rented 5,000. Together, that's 9,000 and so there's still 1,000 that cannot be explained. On the other hand, it's possible that 4,000 was sold but 6,000 was rented. That would reach the 10,000 and this would weaken Brad's argument. However, since it goes both ways it does not definitively weaken the argument...and would only be a "weak" method of weakening the argument.

(B) in a similar manner is "weak" and also is not relevant because it places the explanation on something other than Videorama, ie the other two stores, when clearly the argument is referring to Videorama.
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2768
Re: Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Dec 2012, 01:11
3
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
_________________

| '4 out of Top 5' Instructors on gmatclub | 70 point improvement guarantee | www.e-gmat.com

Director
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 632
Location: India
Re: Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Dec 2012, 04:25
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 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.

Premise of the argument: "Videorama sold only 4,000 videos in 1994." but "the decline was on the order of 10,000 rentals"
Conclusion of the argument: The decline in rentals was probably not due almost entirely to the February 1994 opening of Videorama

We need to weaken the above argument. Choice E weakens the premise that since it says that though there is a gap of 6000 videos to be accounted for, the gap which represents videos that were not bought can be explained by the fact that they were borrowed from friends who had bought them. That fills the gap and weakens Brad's premise.

Choice A seems close because if videorama handled say, 5000 rentals then the total number of videos handled by videorama becomes 5000+4000 which is 9000. That seems to only strengthen Jennifers argument that the decrease was probably almost entirely due to videorama. But the decline in rental is after including the rentals handled by videorama. So if as in choice A if videorama handled 5000 rentals, the others should have handled 15,000 rentals less. So it doesn't quite weaken Brad's argument as E does because there would be still the gap of 6000..
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Sravna Holistic Solutions
http://www.sravnatestprep.com

Holistic and Systematic Approach

Manager
Status: folding sleeves up
Joined: 26 Apr 2013
Posts: 138
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT 1: 530 Q39 V23
GMAT 2: 560 Q42 V26
GPA: 3.5
WE: Consulting (Computer Hardware)
Re: Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jan 2014, 11:26
Why E? Does that mean one gives the purchased video in month of February to his friends? or does it mean that max videos were purchased in feb month and that they were only shared with friends in feb?

Am I missing something with this logic?
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8665
Location: Pune, India
Re: Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jan 2014, 19:49
email2vm wrote:
Why E? Does that mean one gives the purchased video in month of February to his friends? or does it mean that max videos were purchased in feb month and that they were only shared with friends in feb?

Am I missing something with this logic?

Brad says that 10,000 fewer videos were rented but the cheap sale of video rentals by Videorama cannot be responsible for this entire decline because they sold only 4000 videos. So out of these 10,000, it makes sense that 4000 people did not rent the video because they bought them instead but what about the other 6000? Why did they not rent the videos too? So Brad insists that there must be another reason too.
The explanation to Brad's comment can be that the people who buy videos, loan them out to their friends. So every video sold will decreases the number of rentals by not just one but more than one. Hence the entire 10,000 can be explained by the 4000 videos sold.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

VP
Joined: 02 Jul 2012
Posts: 1178
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy
GMAT 1: 740 Q49 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Mar 2014, 21:12
1
Brad argues that there must be some other explanation that does not have to do with the opening of videorama.

Because of videorama, people were now able to buy videos and rent them to their friends, thereby preventing the friends for renting videos.

On another note, I'm not a big fan of this question since it seems to require a lot of assumptions (as straightforward as they may be)on the reader's part. I'd like to know the source of this question. If it is not a reputed source, I suggest not bothering about the question any more.
_________________

Did you find this post helpful?... Please let me know through the Kudos button.

Thanks To The Almighty - My GMAT Debrief

GMAT Reading Comprehension: 7 Most Common Passage Types

Manager
Joined: 12 Nov 2017
Posts: 110
Location: India
GMAT 1: 650 Q50 V28
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
GPA: 2.8
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2018, 10:20
ChrisLele wrote:
Let me do a better job of showing why (A) is not the answer. In doing so, I'll address Charlemagne original explanation.

Sold videos and rented videos are not discrete in terms of who watches the videos. Think of it this way, if I go over to my friend's house and watch a movie, it doesn't matter whether he bought the video or rented the video. I most likely will not rent the movie myself (I've already seen it).

Therefore the argument is not "due to the number of videos rented out by Videorama as opposed to the number of videos sold", but rather to why fewer people are renting videos from Videorama in the first place. 'Sold videos' can thus have a major impact on whether someone rents from Videorama. If I know my buddy Jake bought a cheap copy of Avatar from Videorama, then I am less likely to run down there and rent Avatar. As (E) says, friends are likely to loan videos. I ask Jake he loans me his copy: one fewer person to rent Avatar for Videorama.

Hope that was clearer .

ChrisLele: Sorry to bring this up after so many days.....but people could have rented the videos in 1993 too. Why just in 1994?
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2141
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2018, 17:40
1
ImAnkitKaushik wrote:
ChrisLele wrote:
Let me do a better job of showing why (A) is not the answer. In doing so, I'll address Charlemagne original explanation.

Sold videos and rented videos are not discrete in terms of who watches the videos. Think of it this way, if I go over to my friend's house and watch a movie, it doesn't matter whether he bought the video or rented the video. I most likely will not rent the movie myself (I've already seen it).

Therefore the argument is not "due to the number of videos rented out by Videorama as opposed to the number of videos sold", but rather to why fewer people are renting videos from Videorama in the first place. 'Sold videos' can thus have a major impact on whether someone rents from Videorama. If I know my buddy Jake bought a cheap copy of Avatar from Videorama, then I am less likely to run down there and rent Avatar. As (E) says, friends are likely to loan videos. I ask Jake he loans me his copy: one fewer person to rent Avatar for Videorama.

Hope that was clearer .

ChrisLele: Sorry to bring this up after so many days.....but people could have rented the videos in 1993 too. Why just in 1994?

I'm not sure if this answers your question, but before Videorama opened in 1994, fewer videos were being sold in the area. That means that if you wanted to watch a video, you probably had to rent it (rather than borrowing a copy that, for example, your friend owned). So yes people were renting videos in both 1993 and 1994. But once Videorama opened, more people started buying videos. Those people could then loan their purchased copies to friends, so those friends would not have to rent as many videos.

I hope that helps!
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | Instagram | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

Manager
Joined: 12 Mar 2017
Posts: 236
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 630 Q49 V27
GPA: 4
Re: Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2018, 11:42
Priyanka2011 wrote:
hey..

The arguement compares rentals - that were less in 1994 than 1993.. with sale of videos by videorama..

so why not bridge the gap why saying videorama rented more than it sold ? - a?
similarly why not b ?

Responding to a pm:

The following is the gist of the argument:

Jennifer: Video rental outlets handled 10,000 fewer video rentals in 1994 than in 1993. The decline was due to opening of Videorama in 1994 that sold videos cheaply.

Brad: Wrong. The decline was 10,000 rentals but Videorama sold only 4,000 videos in 1994.

Question: Which would most seriously weaken Brad's objection?

We have to weaken Brad's objection that Videorama sold only 4000 videos whereas the decline is 10,000 videos.
What can explain that 4000 videos sold by Videorama are responsible for the decline of 10,000 in rentals? 4000 videos sold should be responsible for decline of about 4000 rentals only. But if people lend their videos to family and friends, each video sold could account for 2-3 fewer rentals. Then it is possible that 10,000 fewer people rent the videos. Therefore, (E) weakens Brad's objection and is our answer.

(A) and (B) do not provide an explanation against Brad's objection and hence are not correct.

Although I marked E as the answer, I am still not clear why A can be eliminated. Lets see it this way:

Brad objects by saying that Videorama sold only 4000 videos whereas the decline is 10,000 videos. So he believes that there must be some other reason. This is what we have to weaken.

Now, option A says, Videorama rented more videos than it sold. It can mean that videorama was able to divert the balance 6000 people from the existing video outlets. When I view the problem in this way, A appears to be the correct choice.

Thanks
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Posts: 271
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Aug 2018, 14:51
1
Prateek176 wrote:
Although I marked E as the answer, I am still not clear why A can be eliminated. Lets see it this way:

Brad objects by saying that Videorama sold only 4000 videos whereas the decline is 10,000 videos. So he believes that there must be some other reason. This is what we have to weaken.

Now, option A says, Videorama rented more videos than it sold. It can mean that videorama was able to divert the balance 6000 people from the existing video outlets. When I view the problem in this way, A appears to be the correct choice.

Thanks

Here's the deal.

I could show you why (A) doesn't work, but really my showing you that is not what you need right now. You could COMPLETELY understand thousands of questions, but, since GMAT Critical Reasoning is not about what you KNOW as much as it is about what you DO and what you SEE, understanding many already existing questions will not be sufficient for getting you to your score goal. So, I think you are better off doing what you have to do until you see why (A) does not work.

At this point in your training, what you need more than explanations is to develop your SKILLS.

You have completely missed some key aspects of what is said in the passage and what is said in (A). Once you see what you have to see, you will completely agree that (A) does not work AT ALL.

So, go back, read the passage again, read the question again, and read choice (A) again, and figure out why choice (A) is completely useless. Take your time, read every word, and do what you have to do until you see what you have to see. That process is how you train to crush Critical Reasoning.
_________________

Marty Murray
GMAT Coach
m.w.murray@hotmail.com
http://infinitemindprep.com

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8665
Location: Pune, India
Re: Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Aug 2018, 04:49
1
Prateek176 wrote:
Priyanka2011 wrote:
hey..

The arguement compares rentals - that were less in 1994 than 1993.. with sale of videos by videorama..

so why not bridge the gap why saying videorama rented more than it sold ? - a?
similarly why not b ?

Responding to a pm:

The following is the gist of the argument:

Jennifer: Video rental outlets handled 10,000 fewer video rentals in 1994 than in 1993. The decline was due to opening of Videorama in 1994 that sold videos cheaply.

Brad: Wrong. The decline was 10,000 rentals but Videorama sold only 4,000 videos in 1994.

Question: Which would most seriously weaken Brad's objection?

We have to weaken Brad's objection that Videorama sold only 4000 videos whereas the decline is 10,000 videos.
What can explain that 4000 videos sold by Videorama are responsible for the decline of 10,000 in rentals? 4000 videos sold should be responsible for decline of about 4000 rentals only. But if people lend their videos to family and friends, each video sold could account for 2-3 fewer rentals. Then it is possible that 10,000 fewer people rent the videos. Therefore, (E) weakens Brad's objection and is our answer.

(A) and (B) do not provide an explanation against Brad's objection and hence are not correct.

Although I marked E as the answer, I am still not clear why A can be eliminated. Lets see it this way:

Brad objects by saying that Videorama sold only 4000 videos whereas the decline is 10,000 videos. So he believes that there must be some other reason. This is what we have to weaken.

Now, option A says, Videorama rented more videos than it sold. It can mean that videorama was able to divert the balance 6000 people from the existing video outlets. When I view the problem in this way, A appears to be the correct choice.

Thanks

You missed out on the first line of the argument:
"Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000 fewer video rentals in 1994 than in 1993."
The number includes the videos rented out by Videorama too. All outlets together rented fewer videos this year. So even if VIdeorama rented out 6000 videos, it is included in the total which is 10,000 lower than 1993 total.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >

Manager
Joined: 12 Mar 2018
Posts: 65
GMAT 1: 640 Q49 V29
GPA: 4
Re: Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Nov 2018, 15:07
This is a tricky one.
The simple way to weaken this argument is to negate brad's claim

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.

If you want to weaken brad's statement. Remember you have to show "There is no other explanation".

If you think about that you can eliminate all of them you will be most probably left with A and E
A ->(A) In 1994 Videorama rented out more videos than it sold.
This is actually another explanation (Though it weakens, it is not the best weakener).

(E) People who own videos frequently loan them to their friends.
If you think of this to be true.. then you don't need to offer another explanation..
Re: Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000 &nbs [#permalink] 29 Nov 2018, 15:07

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 32 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.