请教一道逻辑题！

xiaoyuliu · 发表于 2011-6-5 11:56:23

10.
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.

这道题为什么选E呢？我觉得A更好啊。请各位大牛们帮忙解答！谢谢啦！

sdcar2010 · 发表于 2011-6-5 11:59:23

4000x2 = 8,000 rentals
4000x4 =16,000 rentals

fangsigaoa · 发表于 2011-6-16 16:30:25

4000x2 = 8,000 rentals
4000x4 =16,000 rentals

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/6/5 11:59:23)

弱弱的同问...表示没看懂。。。

vicky0623 · 发表于 2011-6-16 16:44:21

你确定是E？我也选A。。。。。。

sdcar2010 · 发表于 2011-6-16 21:22:03

4000x2 = 8,000 rentals
4000x4 =16,000 rentals

-- by 会员 sdcar2010 (2011/6/5 11:59:23)

弱弱的同问...表示没看懂。。。

-- by 会员 fangsigaoa (2011/6/16 16:30:25)

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.

What Brad is saying that the amount of video sold by Videorama is only 4,000. That does not adequately explain the decline of 10,000 rentals.

However if E) is true, the buyers of these 4,000 videos can loan the tapes to their friends. Then ANOTHER 4000 people who would have rented the videos would not rent the tapes from the store since they can borrow from their friends. That's 8000 total fewer rentals if each tape was loaned ONCE. If each tape was loaned twice, that's 12,000 total fewer rentals.

MarsTOF · 发表于 2011-6-16 21:25:08

E 对是因为frequently
A 错是因为 4000 + 4000多不一定大于10000

zeze100 · 发表于 2011-6-16 22:44:14

饿好吧，老外是基于不买就rent不到，从店里rent到的又不能lend给其他人的思路

ageng · 发表于 2011-6-23 16:03:09

10.
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.
这道题为什么选E呢？我觉得A更好啊。请各位大牛们帮忙解答！谢谢啦！

-- by 会员 xiaoyuliu (2011/6/5 11:56:23)

注意rental outlets rented量包含Videorama rented的部分。就算Videorama 租出掠夺了其他店的，他的租出量也是总量的一份子。所以A irrelevant。E:就算不是frequently也能weaken。weaken只要能削弱其可能性就可以。当然frequently更站得住脚。GMAT很严谨的。

本贴相关题目 GMATPrep-2007E1-CR-10 (ZJAY)

相关帖子

更多相关帖子

请教一道逻辑题！

所属分类: GMAT考试

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()