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

It is currently 24 Sep 2018, 12:28

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

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

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 11 May 2010
Posts: 179
Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 07 Oct 2017, 03:09
7
12
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

59% (01:46) correct 41% (01:57) wrong based on 871 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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.

Originally posted by gautrang on 09 Oct 2010, 20:31.
Last edited by hazelnut on 07 Oct 2017, 03:09, edited 1 time in total.
Edited the question.
Most Helpful Expert Reply
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Posts: 305
Re: Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Apr 2012, 08:57
18
5
Hopefully, I can clear up any doubt between (A) and (E) :).

We need to weaken Brad's objection, which states that Videorama only sold 4,000 videos. Therefore, that number is not enough to account for the 10,000 fewer videos that the video rental outlets rented out in 1994 vs. 1993.

(A) is tempting because it is easy to think that Brad is only focusing on the number of videos Videorama sold not on the number it rented. Even then, had Videorama rented 5,000 videos that doesn't quite add up to 10,000. (A) therefore is not the 'best answer.'

(E) Brad's objection focuses on the number of videos bought at Videorama. His argument is that number alone cannot account for the 10,000. However (E) directly counters Brad's argument by offering an explanation for how 4,000 can account for the 10,000: friends frequently lend videos they own to other friends. For instance, if one video is loaned 5 times that is 5 fewer people who will rent that video from the other Centerville video stores. THE ANSWER

Hope that helps :).
_________________

Christopher Lele
Magoosh Test Prep


Image

Image

Most Helpful Community Reply
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 09 Mar 2012
Posts: 23
Schools: LBS '14 (S)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Apr 2012, 12:54
7
tech3 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.

Please explain this one. I believe the answer is A.


Tech3,

"A" states that Videorama rented out more videos than it sold. Jennifer specifically mentions 'video rental outlets in Centreville', and Videorama is also a video rental outlet, therefore Videorama's rental number also contributes to the total number of rentals in Centreville. Even if Videorama rented out more videos than it sold, it does not necessarily explain why the total number declined.

On the other hand, if people purchase videos and lends out to friends after they had viewed it, then the rental figure will certainly decline.

Hope this helps.
General Discussion
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Status: Time to step up the tempo
Joined: 24 Jun 2010
Posts: 367
Location: Milky way
Schools: ISB, Tepper - CMU, Chicago Booth, LSB
Re: Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2010, 21:32
gautrang wrote:
I found this one, it is pretty good in a way.

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.


I cannot understand why the OA something else. I went with option A.

The conclusion or argument in the stimulus is -- The decline in rentals was probably due almost entirely to the February 1994 opening of Videorama,. And Brad's objection is -- Videorama sold only 4,000 videos in 1994 and his statement is defending Videorama. If we have to seriously weaken the force of Brad's objection we need to prove that the fall in rental numbers is directly or at least in good part because of Videorama.

Option A attacks Videorama and hence should be the correct option. Option E is in fact strengthening Brad's stance but pointing to a different cause in the fall of rental.

Any other thoughts ???
_________________

:good Support GMAT Club by putting a GMAT Club badge on your blog :thanks

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 444
Location: Kolkata
Re: Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Oct 2010, 06:08
5
1
ezhilkumarank wrote:
gautrang wrote:
I found this one, it is pretty good in a way.

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.


I cannot understand why the OA something else. I went with option A.

The conclusion or argument in the stimulus is -- The decline in rentals was probably due almost entirely to the February 1994 opening of Videorama,. And Brad's objection is -- Videorama sold only 4,000 videos in 1994 and his statement is defending Videorama. If we have to seriously weaken the force of Brad's objection we need to prove that the fall in rental numbers is directly or at least in good part because of Videorama.

Option A attacks Videorama and hence should be the correct option. Option E is in fact strengthening Brad's stance but pointing to a different cause in the fall of rental.

Any other thoughts ???



J: The loss of 10,000 rentals was all Videorama's fault.
B: That's not possible, since Videorama only sold 4000 videos.

That means brad's objection is based on the fact that 4000 is a smaller number than 10,000.

Thus to to WEAKEN brad's objection,COME UP WITH A WAY FOR 4000 SALES TO CANCEL OUT 10,000 RENTALS.

(a) is irrelevant to this issue.

(e) provides a perfect reason why the 4000 sales could, indeed, compensate for the 10,000 rentals: if the sold videos are loaned around, then each of them could cancel out multiple rentals.

Hence E.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 13 Jul 2010
Posts: 8
Re: Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Oct 2010, 01:36
1
What is the source of the source of this question? This is a pretty tricky question where A and E both have good reasons to be right I read it like this:

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.

Thus if the 10,000 rental drop is coming from videorama, wouldn't it make sense for A to be a choice as well as E?

This is how it looks to me:

A: If 4000 dvds were sold, and it states there were more rentals than movie sales, then at least 4001 copies were rented out. This would account for the majority, and would take a big chunk out of the other company's business right?

E: If 4000 dvds were sold, and if those people were more likely to lend their dvds, then it would equate to at least one extra person watching that movie who would have rented.

This is where it gets tricky to me. Are we to decide that because of these people giving the video out to others, does that mean it is due to videorama or the consumer? Additionally, if we are to say this is due to videorama, wouldn't A be the choice? If someone can explain this based on the points made I would like to know why this is E and not A. Please provide the source of this question.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Aug 2010
Posts: 184
Location: Boston
Re: Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Oct 2010, 02:37
3
rooster wrote:
What is the source of the source of this question? This is a pretty tricky question where A and E both have good reasons to be right I read it like this:

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.

Thus if the 10,000 rental drop is coming from videorama, wouldn't it make sense for A to be a choice as well as E?

This is how it looks to me:

A: If 4000 dvds were sold, and it states there were more rentals than movie sales, then at least 4001 copies were rented out. This would account for the majority, and would take a big chunk out of the other company's business right?

E: If 4000 dvds were sold, and if those people were more likely to lend their dvds, then it would equate to at least one extra person watching that movie who would have rented.

This is where it gets tricky to me. Are we to decide that because of these people giving the video out to others, does that mean it is due to videorama or the consumer? Additionally, if we are to say this is due to videorama, wouldn't A be the choice? If someone can explain this based on the points made I would like to know why this is E and not A. Please provide the source of this question.


You're misunderstanding the argument. The argument isn't that Videorama rented or sold 10,000 videos that would have come as rentals from other stores. The argument is that the total of ALL video rentals (including whatever Videorama rented) in the area decreased by 10,000 in the given year. So in 1993, people in Centerville rented a grand total of, say, 100,000 videos, but in 1994 after Videorama opened, people in Centerville only rented 90,000 videos. The number of videos that Videorama rented is irrelevant, because it's included in that 90,000 figure.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 42
Schools: Foster '17 (A)
Re: Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Oct 2011, 11:26
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 ?
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8293
Location: Pune, India
Re: Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Nov 2011, 02:41
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.
_________________

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 >

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: Married
Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Posts: 59
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
GPA: 2.9
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Apr 2012, 21:22
1
I choose A.

Brad's argument starts with an inherent belief that the reason presented by Jennifer is not enough. He backs it with data about the number of videos sold by Videorama. 'A' most seriously weakens Brad's argument as it shows that the impact felt by the other Video Rental outlets is more so due to the number of videos rented out by VIdeorama as opposed to the number of videos sold.
_________________

KUDOS-ing does'nt cost you anything, but might just make someone's day!!!

"Musings of a Muddled Muggle Mind"
http://felinesmile.blogspot.in/
...comments Welcome :)

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 14 Dec 2010
Posts: 155
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 680 Q44 V39
Re: Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Apr 2012, 00:36
I agree with charlemagne. The conclusion by Brad states sales but the argument is about rentals. This leaves only A as the option
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: Married
Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Posts: 59
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
GPA: 2.9
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Apr 2012, 00:51
naveenhv wrote:
I agree with charlemagne. The conclusion by Brad states sales but the argument is about rentals. This leaves only A as the option


Thanks for the vote of confidence dude...wonder if Chris' argument is definitive though?
_________________

KUDOS-ing does'nt cost you anything, but might just make someone's day!!!

"Musings of a Muddled Muggle Mind"
http://felinesmile.blogspot.in/
...comments Welcome :)

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Posts: 305
Re: Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Apr 2012, 07:56
4
1
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 :).
_________________

Christopher Lele
Magoosh Test Prep


Image

Image

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 07 Dec 2011
Posts: 107
Location: India
Concentration: International Business, Strategy
GMAT Date: 07-30-2012
GPA: 2.66
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Jul 2012, 16:34
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.

Quote:
I marked the answer as A which differs from OA
SOme thing tells me that OA is not the right deduction as it is outside the scope of the argument
Some help desired!

_________________

Please press Kudos if you found this post helpful

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Status: Final Countdown
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 474
Location: India
GPA: 3.82
WE: Account Management (Retail Banking)
Re: Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Jul 2012, 16:44
Straight (E),
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.
No.of videos sold is only 4000 but the decline was on the order of 1000 rentals means that the rentals are more than the purchase.
From where the other orders could have come from which is lost now?
lending from a friend !
(E) wins
_________________

" Make more efforts "
Press Kudos if you liked my post

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 26 May 2012
Posts: 23
Re: Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Jul 2012, 04:51
1
maybeam 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.

Quote:
I marked the answer as A which differs from OA
SOme thing tells me that OA is not the right deduction as it is outside the scope of the argument
Some help desired!


"maybeam": in weakening question, you must deal with alternatives or disprove the structural premise-premise-conclusion relationship. you connect out side pertinent event to attack the argument that would be fine and logical, because your action is to hurt the argument.



the rewritable formate may be like this one

Jennifer:Video rental outlets industry in Centerville rented 10,000 fewer videos in 1994 than in 1993 for opening of Videorama( in 94'), the newly video rental outlet in the area that rent and sold videos cheaply.

Brad: the decrease in rental videos for overall industry is not for the opening the newly video rental outlet but for other reasons because it sold only 4,000 videos in 1994.


you must prove that videos sales decreases only for the the newly video rental outlet not for the other reasons or explanations..........right?


(A) In 1994 Videorama rented out more videos than it sold.---------the most tempting choice is this.say for total market sales for videos rental is fixed for the time. more videos rent means--may be 4001 or something that doesnot cover 10000 videos rental. mathmatics can be applied here X>-1 . IS X>0? WHAT IS your response? is there any clear cut answer here,NO, because both can be, same thing goes here.BCZ atleast one point is here to support BRAD's claim-----4000+4001=8001 that does not capture the figure discussed in the stimulus. ther might have some other explanation. so we can not take it as a weakening point.

(B) In 1994 two new outlets that rent but that do not sell videos opened in Centerville. ok good. two new outlets--although in stimulus it was said about opening one new outlet------rented more videos than sold. does it quantify any figure discussed in the stimulus? so how can we weak the argument?

(C) Most of the video rental outlets in Centerville rent videos at a discount on certain nights of the week. see the explanation in B- there is not quantifiable data for weakening the brad's claim.

(D) People often buy videos of movies that they have previously seen in a theater. so what? does it tell anything for reducing rental or sales of videos by newly outlet or by any other causes?

(E) People who own videos frequently loan them to their friends. this slightly shows a cause to reduce the overall industry videos sales for the time being. if 4000 videos are sold by the newly rented outlet, there must have possibility to spread out this copy to the fixed market ,as it is guessed, potential users this events ultimately reduced the overall rental service for industry.

though it is not cet percent justifiable. but you should not apply common myths in gmat. whatever discussed in gamt is right whether it happens in real world or not. the fact is find the best one from the five alternatives. i am ryte ? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Retired Moderator
avatar
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 718
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: International Business, Marketing
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Jul 2012, 10:48
1
1
maybeam 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 objectiron 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.

Quote:
I marked the answer as A which differs from OA
SOme thing tells me that OA is not the right deduction as it is outside the scope of the argument
Some help desired!


First, you must analyze the question stem: Which of following would most seriously weaken the force of the objection that Brad presents to Jennifer's explanation?

What is the objection of Brad? The decline was on the order of 10,000 rentals. Yet Videorama sold only 4,000 videos in 1994.

We must interpret this objection:

Brad want to object that the Videorama is not the direct cause of the decline in 10,000 rental. However, choice (E) the paradox here, the sale of 4,000 videos will indirectly affect the revenue of rentals when the video purchasers lend videos to their friends.
_________________

Rules for posting in verbal gmat forum, read it before posting anything in verbal forum
Giving me + 1 kudos if my post is valuable with you :)

The more you like my post, the more you share to other's need

CR: Focus of the Week: Must be True Question

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Status: Final Countdown
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 474
Location: India
GPA: 3.82
WE: Account Management (Retail Banking)
Re: Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Aug 2012, 03:42
@naruphanp

this is how you can understand the video/movie piracy.
suppose there are shops selling video CDs for movies etc... many people will buy them and watch the movie, but when people will start buying the CDs and sharing it with friends then the actual purchase will decline, where 10000 CDs used to sell , now only 4000 is purchased by people and these 4000 people are sharing the movie CDs with rest of the 6000 people or more.(Suppose a gang of friends with 10 guys, 1 brought the CD and after watching he shared it with other friends, or uploaded on some online channels, copied on other friends computers etc..)
_________________

" Make more efforts "
Press Kudos if you liked my post

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 09 May 2012
Posts: 12
Location: Thailand
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT Date: 08-30-2012
GPA: 2.64
WE: Research (Retail Banking)
Re: Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Aug 2012, 03:49
@thevenus

thanks for the explanation. however, for choice A., couldn't it be possible for Venturama to sell 4000 and rent out an additional 6000? This would also make up for the 10,000 decline since Venturama both sells and rents videos.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 03 Jul 2012
Posts: 112
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V36
GPA: 3.9
WE: Programming (Computer Software)
Re: Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Aug 2012, 08:39
2
naruphanp wrote:
@thevenus

thanks for the explanation. however, for choice A., couldn't it be possible for Venturama to sell 4000 and rent out an additional 6000? This would also make up for the 10,000 decline since Venturama both sells and rents videos.


Hey naruphanp,
As far as i understand the question, its about decreasing the amount of rentals in a particular area bcoz of opening of a new shop. Brad argues that the new shop sold only 4000 records, yet the total decrease was 10,000. Now, if we consider A, that new shop sold 4000, and rented out 6000, but this 6000 will add up to the total CDs rented in that year which means only the number of CDs rented reduced only by 4000. However, in option E, if 4000 people who had bought the CD, rent it to their friends, that wont be added to business done by the CD renters and eventually decrease the total amount of CDs rented by the shopkeepers, which can be the only possible explanation for the given question.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000 &nbs [#permalink] 09 Aug 2012, 08:39

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 31 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  

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.