#13 - A computer game publisher has recently released its latest adventure game.

[Jude.m.stone@gmail.com]

Hi, I'm very confused by #13 and can't find a previous post on here explaining it. I don't understand how the correct answer is B -- this answer would make sense to me if the question was about a prediction that the rentals will increase (because if the game takes weeks to play, people would have to rent it 14+ times to finish it). But I'm not seeing how the length of the game translates to people purchasing the game. For what it's worth, I wasn't tempted by any of the other answer choices, because none of them, including B, seem to justify the publisher's prediction. Can you please explain how you solved this and what I'm missing?

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Jude,

Sure! If most players don't finish the game in the rental period, the rebate would be at least somewhat enticing to buy the game instead of renting it (even renting it multiple times as you describe). The stimulus pushes in that direction when it says that the rebate constitutes "a significant portion of the purchase price." If the rebate (cost of one rental) is a significant portion of the purchase price, that's a pretty strong suggestion you'd be better off buying it than renting it the number of times you'd have to rent it to finish the game. Does answer choice B guarantee that players will take that offer (rather than just spending the rebate money to rent the game once)? No, but this is a Strengthen question, which means it just has to provide some chance that players will do that. By suggesting there is an incentive to purchase the game over just renting it for two days (or renting it many times for a few weeks), answer choice B does that for us.