This explains how the stores remain in business, not why switching to the new videocassette would save them money. If stores pay a small amount for videocassettes to begin with, then Tony’s position is more challenging to defend.

This doesn’t imply the stores would avoid paying royalties on those purchases. It’s possible a store pays royalties each time it purchases a new videocassette, in which case this fact would not save rental stores money.

This weakens Anna’s argument by questioning her assumption that the new videocassette would only save stores money on the physical copies. If stores will also save on royalty costs, their total savings may be much greater than 5 percent.

Since it is unknown how rental fees and purchase prices compare, this information is useless. It cannot be applied to video rental stores in total.

This may explain why the videocassettes get worn out, but does not support either speaker’s argument. Neither Anna nor Tony relies on the rate that videocassettes need replaced for their argument.