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.
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
700 question ! . Tuff
This topic has expert replies
Argument is about ban. Example is given about the Restriction.
a. In the provinces that restricted alcoholic beverages, there was a
short-term negative impact on restaurant visitation in the beginning
of last year. Impact is irrelevant
b. The sales tax in Prohibitionland is lower on food and beverages than
it is on other consumer goods, such as clothing. Sales tax of other items are not in consideration.
c. The consumption of alcoholic beverages in Prohibitionland has been
on a gradual decline the last 20 years. If this is case then how would this affect the ban.
d. The restrictions on alcoholic beverages enacted last year allowed for
the service of drinks beginning around dinnertime each evening. Bcz restriction allow sale of drinks at dinnertime when it is actuallly a more customer base.
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. Irrelevant.
a. In the provinces that restricted alcoholic beverages, there was a
short-term negative impact on restaurant visitation in the beginning
of last year. Impact is irrelevant
b. The sales tax in Prohibitionland is lower on food and beverages than
it is on other consumer goods, such as clothing. Sales tax of other items are not in consideration.
c. The consumption of alcoholic beverages in Prohibitionland has been
on a gradual decline the last 20 years. If this is case then how would this affect the ban.
d. The restrictions on alcoholic beverages enacted last year allowed for
the service of drinks beginning around dinnertime each evening. Bcz restriction allow sale of drinks at dinnertime when it is actuallly a more customer base.
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. Irrelevant.
-
sanjaysmart
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:28 pm
- Thanked: 5 times
The argument of those proprietors who protest the Ban:
The Ban will bring about lower revenues and profits.
In short, these people have created a (projected) causal correlation between the ban and lower revenues/profits
The counter assertion to this argument is:
The places where the ban was enforced actually saw sales tax rise by 50% as compared to only 30% for those places that had no ban.
In short, the argument has created a causal correlation (argumentum post hoc ergo propter hoc) between the implementation of the ban in the past and an increase in sales tax.
This argument is focussed on weakening the argument of the proprietors who protest the ban. But the causal correlation it creates could be weakened by stating that the ban was not the direct and sole cause of the sales tax increase of 50%.
(D) says that the impact of the ban was negligible (in causing sales tax to rise so steeply) because the ban was implemented only from dinnertime onwards. Thus, this negates the causal correlation between the ban and the increase in sales tax. Because it does this, it actually strengthens the argument of those who protest this ban.
It would help if people who attempt this question were fimiliar with the Fallacy 'argumentum post hoc ergo propter hoc' and (generally speaking) causal reasoning.
The Ban will bring about lower revenues and profits.
In short, these people have created a (projected) causal correlation between the ban and lower revenues/profits
The counter assertion to this argument is:
The places where the ban was enforced actually saw sales tax rise by 50% as compared to only 30% for those places that had no ban.
In short, the argument has created a causal correlation (argumentum post hoc ergo propter hoc) between the implementation of the ban in the past and an increase in sales tax.
This argument is focussed on weakening the argument of the proprietors who protest the ban. But the causal correlation it creates could be weakened by stating that the ban was not the direct and sole cause of the sales tax increase of 50%.
(D) says that the impact of the ban was negligible (in causing sales tax to rise so steeply) because the ban was implemented only from dinnertime onwards. Thus, this negates the causal correlation between the ban and the increase in sales tax. Because it does this, it actually strengthens the argument of those who protest this ban.
It would help if people who attempt this question were fimiliar with the Fallacy 'argumentum post hoc ergo propter hoc' and (generally speaking) causal reasoning.
-
jeevan.Gk
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:54 pm
- Thanked: 7 times
But the answer choice neglects 30 % increase in other areas where ban was not implemented.. In these areas all time alcohol was served.. but there is no substantial increase in sales tax.. hence indicating that there is a third reason fo the substantial increase(50%) in sales tax..
I think this is not a typical Gmat CR question since there are lot of
loo poles... We may have to tweak the question lil bit or answer choices to make it worth Gmat standard..
Let me know others comments
I think this is not a typical Gmat CR question since there are lot of
loo poles... We may have to tweak the question lil bit or answer choices to make it worth Gmat standard..
Let me know others comments
-
sanjaysmart
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:28 pm
- Thanked: 5 times
-
krishnakumarhod
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:13 am
- Thanked: 3 times
I go with C.jeevan.Gk 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.
A is an assortment of words to further confuse. What does short-term negative visitation mean in terms of sales, or taxes? Eliminate.
B. is too broad or out of scope. Restaurants don’t sell clothing, which is irrelevant to the argument. Eliminate.
D. is entrapping but fails close scrutiny. There is no way of knowing if the 50% increase is because of beverage or because of food. If it is b/c of beverage, why should restriction be a motivation for people drinking more in the part of the country where restriction is imposed and less or the same in the other part with no restriction? Doesn’t explain the 20% differential between the two places. If food, similar to B since the argument concerns beverage. Eliminate.
E. Too Broad. The argument concerns the selling of alcoholic beverages in restaurants. Sales tax revenue in several different provinces including sales of non-alcoholic goods. Eliminate.
That leaves C. Restricting the sale of alcoholic beverage will reduce beverage revenue since we are told fewer and fewer people have been drinking in the last 20 years. Since owners are concerned about revenue they have a right to protest.
I am interested in the structure of this question. The pattern of the argument is not similar to a regular strengthen the conclusion question.
I feel structure of the argument is as follows :
Viewpoint 1 . Viewpoint 2 . Support for viewpoint 1 .
Question asks to support Viewpoint 2 . Correct answer (D) supports Viewpoint 2 by weakening Viewpoint 1.
I took time to realize this. Are such patterns common in GMAT too ?
I feel structure of the argument is as follows :
Viewpoint 1 . Viewpoint 2 . Support for viewpoint 1 .
Question asks to support Viewpoint 2 . Correct answer (D) supports Viewpoint 2 by weakening Viewpoint 1.
I took time to realize this. Are such patterns common in GMAT too ?
-
Testluv
- GMAT Instructor
- Posts: 1302
- Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
- Location: Toronto
- Thanked: 539 times
- Followed by:164 members
- GMAT Score:800
Yes. Especially in boldface questions there are usually two points of view: the author's and someone else's. Also, sometimes, the question stem will ask you to stn/wkn an argument other than the author's.hk_4u wrote:I am interested in the structure of this question. The pattern of the argument is not similar to a regular strengthen the conclusion question.
I feel structure of the argument is as follows :
Viewpoint 1 . Viewpoint 2 . Support for viewpoint 1 .
Question asks to support Viewpoint 2 . Correct answer (D) supports Viewpoint 2 by weakening Viewpoint 1.
I took time to realize this. Are such patterns common in GMAT too ?
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
-
mmslf75
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 503
- Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:53 pm
- Thanked: 31 times
- Followed by:2 members
jeevan.Gk 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.
Isn't D a better choice..
As it was not a FULL ban but a partial that allowed drinks to be served
so 50% and 30% thing is defeated!!
wat say ?
