Tony: A new kind of videocassette has just been developed. It lasts for only half as many viewings as the old kind does but costs a third as much. Therefore, video rental stores would find it significantly more economical to purchase and stock movies recorded on the new kind of videocassette than on the old kind.

Anna: But the videocassette itself only accounts for 5 percent of the price a video rental store pays to buy a copy of a movie on video; most of the price consists of royalties the store pays to the studio that produced the movie. So the price that video rental stores pay per copy would decrease by considerably less than 5 percent, and royalties would have to be paid on additional copies.

Summary

In light of Tony’s conclusion that the new kind of videocassette tape would be significantly more economical to video rental stores, Anna claims that the videocassette tape itself only accounts for 5 percent of the total price paid by video rental stores for a copy of a movie. Most of the price video rental stores pay for each videocassette tape consists of royalties, therefore the price video rental stores will pay per tape would decrease considerably less than 5 percent.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

The new kind of videocassette tape would not be significantly more economical for video rental stores.

A
The royalties paid to movie studios for movies sold on videotape are excessively large.

We don’t know whether Anna believes the royalties paid to movie studios are excessively large. We only know that royalties account for the majority of the price per videotape copy.

B
Video rental stores should always stock the highest-quality videocassettes available, because durability is more important than price.

We don’t know what Anna believes video rental stores should do.

C
The largest part of the fee a customer pays to rent a movie from a video rental store goes toward the royalties the store paid in purchasing that movie.

We don’t know what a customer’s fees for renting a movie pay for. Anna states that most of the price video rental stores pay for a videotape go toward royalties, but we don’t know what portion of customers’ rental fees cover those royalties.

D
The cost savings to video rental stores that buy movies recorded on the cheaper videocassettes rather than movies recorded on the more durable ones will be small or nonexistent.

Anna believes that switching to the new kind of videocassette tape will not be significantly more economical for video rental stores, since the cost of the tape itself is only a small fraction of the price rental stores pay per copy.

E
If the price a video rental store pays to buy a movie on videocassette does not decrease, the rental fee the store charges on the movie will not decrease.

We don’t know what factors would cause video rental fees to increase, decrease, or stay the same.

</section


93 comments

People’s political behavior frequently does not match their rhetoric. Although many complain about government intervention in their lives, they tend not to reelect inactive politicians. But a politician’s activity consists largely in the passage of laws whose enforcement affects voters’ lives. Thus, voters often reelect politicians whose behavior they resent.

Summarize Argument
The author tells us that what people say about politics often contradicts their political behavior. The argument defines these concepts: what people say is that they want less government intervention, but what they do is vote out inactive politicians. The author tells us that what politicians do is pass laws that intervene in voters’ lives. We then get a sub-conclusion: “voters often reelect politicians whose behavior they resent,” meaning that people vote for active politicians who interfere with their lives, which they don’t like. This all supports the claim that people’s political talk and behavior differ.

Identify Argument Part
The claim that people tend not to reelect inactive politicians is a factual premise that supports a sub-conclusion (that voters reelect politicians they resent), which in turn supports the main conclusion.

A
It describes a phenomenon for which the argument’s conclusion is offered as an explanation.
The claim that people don’t reelect inactive politicians is not explained by anything else in the argument. It’s just stated as a stand-alone factual claim.
B
It is a premise offered in support of the conclusion that voters often reelect politicians whose behavior they resent.
This is an accurate description of the claim that people don’t reelect inactive politicians. The claim helps to support the idea that voters reelect politicians they resent, which is a sub-conclusion that supports the main conclusion that political talk and behavior differ.
C
It is offered as an example of how a politician’s activity consists largely in the passage of laws whose enforcement interferes with voters’ lives.
The author never offers an example of how politicians’ main activity is to pass laws that interfere with people’s lives. Also, the claim that people don’t reelect inactive politicians is a distinct factual statement from the interference claim.
D
It is a generalization based on the claim that people complain about government intervention in their lives.
The claim that people don’t reelect inactive politicians is not based on the claim that people complain about government intervention. They’re two totally separate statements.
E
It is cited as evidence that people’s behavior never matches their political beliefs.
The author does not claim that people’s political behavior never matches their beliefs, only that it sometimes doesn’t.

</section


89 comments