Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
11 Apr 2025, 00:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
43% (02:08) correct
57%
(02:20)
wrong
based on 252
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
The existing anti-duplication laws, restricting the unauthorized duplication of videocassettes, must be more effectively enforced. Effective enforcement would lead to greater profits for motion picture companies. This increase in revenue would stimulate the release of more films on videocassette. That outcome alone makes rigid enforcement a benefit to movie fans, even those who had previously saved on cheaper, illegal copies.
If the information above is correct, which of the following can be most properly concluded?
(A) Movie fans would be better served by a wider, costlier selection of films on videocassette than a narrower, cheaper selection.
(B) Film and video production will decrease unless there is stricter enforcement of existing anti-duplication laws.
(C) Stricter enforcement of anti-duplication laws will stimulate the motion picture companies to produce more films.
(D) Lax enforcement of the anti-duplication laws that already exist has led to a steady decrease in the profitability of the film industry.
(E) Existing anti-duplication laws are insufficient to promote the release of new movies on videocassette, and must be replaced by new, more rigid laws.
If the information above is correct, which of the following can be most properly concluded?
(A) Movie fans would be better served by a wider, costlier selection of films on videocassette than a narrower, cheaper selection.
(B) Film and video production will decrease unless there is stricter enforcement of existing anti-duplication laws.
(C) Stricter enforcement of anti-duplication laws will stimulate the motion picture companies to produce more films.
(D) Lax enforcement of the anti-duplication laws that already exist has led to a steady decrease in the profitability of the film industry.
(E) Existing anti-duplication laws are insufficient to promote the release of new movies on videocassette, and must be replaced by new, more rigid laws.
11 Apr 2025, 01:25
Kudos
Bookmarks
Arguement: The existing anti-duplication laws, restricting the unauthorized duplication of videocassettes, must be more effectively enforced.
Reasoning: Effective enforcement would lead to greater profits for motion picture companies. This increase in revenue would stimulate the release of more films on videocassette.
Conclusion: That outcome alone makes rigid enforcement a benefit to movie fans, even those who had previously saved on cheaper, illegal copies.
Effective enforcement of anti-duplication laws => ↑ in revenue + profits for motion picture companies => ↑ release of films on videocassette => Benefit movie fans, both who used to duplicate and those who didn't duplicate alike
After laws would be effectively enforced, movie fans would have more films on videocassettes.
(A) Movie fans would be better served by a wider, costlier selection of films on videocassette than a narrower, cheaper selection.
More films being released (wider selection) benefits movie fans, even if they have to pay more for legal copies => Keep
(B) Film and video production will decrease unless there is stricter enforcement of existing anti-duplication laws.
The passage only states that enforcement would increase production, not that lack of enforcement would decrease it from current levels => Eliminate
(C) Stricter enforcement of anti-duplication laws will stimulate the motion picture companies to produce more films.
This looks like a trap. The passage states that enforcement would lead to more films being released on videocassette, not necessarily producing more films overall. Motion picture companies could release more of the existing films on videocassettes without actually producing more films => Eliminate
(D) Lax enforcement of the anti-duplication laws that already exist has led to a steady decrease in the profitability of the film industry.
No claim about past trends in profitability is made => Eliminate
(E) Existing anti-duplication laws are insufficient to promote the release of new movies on videocassette, and must be replaced by new, more rigid laws.
Existing laws need better enforcement, not that they should be replaced => Eliminate
(A) seems to be the best inference.
Reasoning: Effective enforcement would lead to greater profits for motion picture companies. This increase in revenue would stimulate the release of more films on videocassette.
Conclusion: That outcome alone makes rigid enforcement a benefit to movie fans, even those who had previously saved on cheaper, illegal copies.
Effective enforcement of anti-duplication laws => ↑ in revenue + profits for motion picture companies => ↑ release of films on videocassette => Benefit movie fans, both who used to duplicate and those who didn't duplicate alike
After laws would be effectively enforced, movie fans would have more films on videocassettes.
(A) Movie fans would be better served by a wider, costlier selection of films on videocassette than a narrower, cheaper selection.
More films being released (wider selection) benefits movie fans, even if they have to pay more for legal copies => Keep
(B) Film and video production will decrease unless there is stricter enforcement of existing anti-duplication laws.
The passage only states that enforcement would increase production, not that lack of enforcement would decrease it from current levels => Eliminate
(C) Stricter enforcement of anti-duplication laws will stimulate the motion picture companies to produce more films.
This looks like a trap. The passage states that enforcement would lead to more films being released on videocassette, not necessarily producing more films overall. Motion picture companies could release more of the existing films on videocassettes without actually producing more films => Eliminate
(D) Lax enforcement of the anti-duplication laws that already exist has led to a steady decrease in the profitability of the film industry.
No claim about past trends in profitability is made => Eliminate
(E) Existing anti-duplication laws are insufficient to promote the release of new movies on videocassette, and must be replaced by new, more rigid laws.
Existing laws need better enforcement, not that they should be replaced => Eliminate
(A) seems to be the best inference.
11 Apr 2025, 11:10
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
Let’s analyse the question stem .
There is an existing law on ANTI DUPLICATION- which restricts the unauthorised duplication of video cassettes. But, there is lacunae while enforcing this law.
Effective enforcement has certain benefits - would lead to greater profits. We can infer two things, that there were at least some profits and not losses while the anti duplication law enforcement had lacunae.
Effective enforcement leads to greater profit for motion picture companies. This revenue is utilised for enabling release of more video cassettes. The last concluding statement mentions, stimulating release of more video cassette has benefitted movie fans.
This benefit has extended not only to movie fans, but also to fans who were buying duplicated video cassette illegally previously for cheaper prices.
Let’s look into the options for the concluding statements.
(A) Movie fans would be better served by a wider, costlier selection of films on videocassette than a narrower, cheaper selection.
Yes, this option seems correct. If strict enforcement of anti duplication law is put to place. Movie fans will not have access to cheaper illegal movie cassettes. But, the demand is being fulfilled by the motion picture companies, which is the only supplier of cassettes. Eventually leading to greater profits.
Let’s look other options before concluding.
(B) Film and video production will decrease unless there is stricter enforcement of existing anti-duplication laws.
No where in the passage could we find a mention on decreased film and video production. So eliminating it.
(C) Stricter enforcement of anti-duplication laws will stimulate the motion picture companies to produce more films.
Lacunae in enforcing anti duplication law has not previously hampered film production. The law is pertaining to unauthorised duplication and illegal sales of cheaper video content cassettes. Hence out.
(D) Lax enforcement of the anti-duplication laws that already exist has led to a steady decrease in the profitability of the film industry.
The passage mentions strict enforcement will lead to greater profits. That doesn’t mean, that lax enforcement leads to decreased profits. There can still be profits, but the magnitude would have been minimal. Hence not correct.
(E) Existing anti-duplication laws are insufficient to promote the release of new movies on videocassette, and must be replaced by new, more rigid laws.
The passage mentions the law per se is good in letter. But was not implemented in its true spirit, which has caused the unauthorised duplication and sale of video cassettes. Hence, eliminated.
Correct answer is Option A
