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.

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.

Ok. I understood that what we explained above does not hold on you. Ok let me try in a direct manner as usually I do

Jennifer: Video rental outlets in Centerville together handled 10,000 fewer video rentals in 1994 than in 1993.

Ok we do have a decrease in rental videos. RENTALS

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.

Ok. maybe the cause is a new store in the area.

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.

Ok. Cannot be that specific and only a new store because it overall sold 4k. Notice how videorama sold videos but we are talking about rentals decline



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.

We care about the 10k rentals decline ok ? videorama sold 4k video. Already we have a discrepancy. Moreover, we talk about that videorama rented more videos than sold. Now

1) The stem talks ONLY of the video sold by Videorama NOT a comparison about sold vs rented. Only for this A is off because is NOt the argument we want to weaken and is NOT what we can with certain to asses because from the argument we do not have a lot of information about sold vs rentals, if any

(B) In 1994 two new outlets that rent but that do not sell videos opened in Centerville.

Irrelevant whatsoever

(C) Most of the video rental outlets in Centerville rent videos at a discount on certain nights of the week.

Irrelevant. Does not tell us anything about the decline of 10k rentals

(D) People often buy videos of movies that they have previously seen in a theater.

Yes this weakens the argument and explain why we do have a decline of 10k: people do NOT rent a movie but buy them and this happens OFTEN

(E) People who own videos frequently loan them to their friends.

Irrelevant what people do on the second hand: buy first and then loan.

I hope now is clear

regards

Here you are saying that E is wrong D is correct but in second comment you said E is correct and answer given also is E

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.

This is irrelevant because tells us about what did Videorama but NOT the whole picture in centerville

(B) In 1994 two new outlets that rent but that do not sell videos opened in Centerville.

Again, two new video outlets does not tell us anything about

(C) Most of the video rental outlets in Centerville rent videos at a discount on certain nights of the week.

This is just another way to rent video but not explain the decline

(D) People often buy videos of movies that they have previously seen in a theater.

Another statistic on their behavior

(E) People who own videos frequently loan them to their friends.

This is the perfect explanation WHY of the decline. People pass hand in hand the videos so we have a decline. For people there is no necessity to rent videos if someone borrow to them.

Hope this helps

Hello from the GRE Prep Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GRE Prep 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.