Critical Reasoning

The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the service of alcoholic beverages in restaurants to curb unruly behavior on the part of its residents. Proprietors of restaurants in Prohibitionland are protesting the ban on the grounds that it will reduce their revenues and profits. However, several provinces in Prohibitionland enacted restrictions on alcoholic beverages last year, and the sales taxes paid by the restaurants in those provinces rose by an average of 50 percent. In contrast, the sales taxes paid by restaurants located in areas of Prohibitionland that did not have any restrictions rose by an average of 30 percent.

Which of the following, if true, supports the restaurant proprietors' economic stance against the ban?
A In the provinces that restricted alcoholic beverages, there was a short-term negative impact on restaurant visitation in the beginning of last year.

B The sales tax in Prohibitionland is lower on food and beverages than it is on other consumer goods, such as clothing.

C The consumption of alcoholic beverages in Prohibitionland has been on a gradual decline the last 20 years.

D The restrictions on alcoholic beverages enacted last year allowed for the service of drinks beginning around dinnertime each evening.

E Overall sales tax revenue did not increase at a substantially higher rate in the provinces that enacted the restrictions on alcoholic beverages than in the rest of Prohibitionland last year.

IMMO - D

(D) provides the reason for higher sales tax paid by the restaurants that implemented the ban, basically supporting the stance against the ban.

Imo, D is the answer.

+1 D

bryan88 wrote:The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the service of alcoholic beverages in restaurants to curb unruly behavior on the part of its residents. Proprietors of restaurants in Prohibitionland are protesting the ban on the grounds that it will reduce their revenues and profits. However, several provinces in Prohibitionland enacted restrictions on alcoholic beverages last year, and the sales taxes paid by the restaurants in those provinces rose by an average of 50 percent. In contrast, the sales taxes paid by restaurants located in areas of Prohibitionland that did not have any restrictions rose by an average of 30 percent.

Which of the following, if true, supports the restaurant proprietors' economic stance against the ban?
A In the provinces that restricted alcoholic beverages, there was a short-term negative impact on restaurant visitation in the beginning of last year.

B The sales tax in Prohibitionland is lower on food and beverages than it is on other consumer goods, such as clothing.

C The consumption of alcoholic beverages in Prohibitionland has been on a gradual decline the last 20 years.

D The restrictions on alcoholic beverages enacted last year allowed for the service of drinks beginning around dinnertime each evening.

E Overall sales tax revenue did not increase at a substantially higher rate in the provinces that enacted the restrictions on alcoholic beverages than in the rest of Prohibitionland last year.

This CR exhibits a CHANGE IN SCOPE.
The premise is about X: RESTRICTING the sale of alcoholic beverages in several provinces did not hurt restaurants.
The conclusion is about Y: BANNING the sale of alcoholic beverages in Prohibitionland will not hurt restaurants.
BANNING ≠ RESTRICTING.

The proprietors disagree with the conclusion here.
To support the proprietors' position, the correct answer must show why BANNING the sale of alcohol would have a more negative impact than simply RESTRICTING the sale of alcohol.

D: The restrictions on alcoholic beverages enacted last year allowed for the service of drinks beginning around dinnertime each evening.
Thus, the RESTRICTIONS did not hurt sales because the restaurants were still able to sell alcohol all evening, when alcohol is typically purchased.
Thus, the proprietors' claim that BANNING the sale of alcohol would reduce revenues and profits is strengthened.

The correct answer is D.

good question! thanks

Thank you GMATGURUNY! Your explanation is much easier to understand than MGMAT's!

lengthy question with obvious answer.

Exactly the correct answer should be D. and not anything else.

Option A:- Does not affect the argument.Also, in extreme it weakens the propreitors' stance as when the restaurant visitation was low it had a increase of 50% in profits, then with normal visitation it would increase even further.

Option B:- Abslolutely does not affect the argument.

Option C:- Weakens the restaurant propreitor's claim as not the restrictions but something else decreased the profits and revenues.

Option E:- Does not affect the argument at all as nowhere the argument says that the profits or the revenues should increase at a substantial rate. Even a slight increase in profits can weaken the argument.

Option D:- Strengthens the argument.

Hope this helps.

Thanks.