BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

alcoholic beverages in Prohibitionland

Expert replies
by SmarpanGamt » Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:55 am
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?

In the provinces that restricted alcoholic beverages, there was a short-term negative impact on restaurant visitation in the beginning of last year.
The sales tax in Prohibitionland is lower on food and beverages than it is on other consumer goods, such as clothing.
The consumption of alcoholic beverages in Prohibitionland has been on a gradual decline the last 20 years.
The restrictions on alcoholic beverages enacted last year allowed for the service of drinks beginning around dinnertime each evening.
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.

Please discuss.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by sanabk » Wed Dec 01, 2010 1:49 pm
Join the discussion

by SmarpanGamt » Sat Dec 04, 2010 9:19 pm
Please explain. Thanks. OA Later
Join the discussion

by M09 » Sun Dec 05, 2010 1:04 am
SmarpanGamt 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?

In the provinces that restricted alcoholic beverages, there was a short-term negative impact on restaurant visitation in the beginning of last year.
The sales tax in Prohibitionland is lower on food and beverages than it is on other consumer goods, such as clothing.
The consumption of alcoholic beverages in Prohibitionland has been on a gradual decline the last 20 years.
The restrictions on alcoholic beverages enacted last year allowed for the service of drinks beginning around dinnertime each evening.
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.

Please discuss.
Is it A ??
Join the discussion

by SmarpanGamt » Sun Dec 12, 2010 3:28 am
explaination please.
Join the discussion

by fitzgerald23 » Sun Dec 12, 2010 9:51 am
1. Provinces that restricted alcohol saw sales tax revenue raise 50%
2. Provinces with no restrictions saw tax revenue only raise 30%
3. A ban on alcohol will thus not effect revenues

A. Incorrect. Visitation falling does not necessarily mean lack of spending. In fact if there was a short term affect and revenues still rose it means the remaining people are likely spending more money

B. Incorrect. A comparison on food and clothing has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

C. Incorrect. Whether or not it is already declining has no effect on the argument

D. Correct. This states that there is a difference in the enacted laws and the proposed laws. This evidence states that the restrictions were not a full ban, but in fact allowed alcohol sales after dinnertime. There is no evidence that supports the fact that a full ban will increase revenue.

E. Incorrect. Overall sales tax revenue for all busineeses has no bearing on the argument positive or negative
Join the discussion

by arora007 » Mon Dec 13, 2010 4:59 am
D should be the obvious choice. D explains the paradox why there was a 50% increase in sales tax when there were restrictions on serving alcohol.
Its because people frequented more often at dinner time to have alcohol and as a result many of them did have dinner as well and the overall sales rose.

OA please.
https://www.skiponemeal.org/
https://twitter.com/skiponemeal
Few things are impossible to diligence & skill.Great works are performed not by strength,but by perseverance

pm me if you find junk/spam/abusive language, Lets keep our community clean!!
Join the discussion

by pradeepkaushal9518 » Wed Dec 15, 2010 9:15 pm
drinks are allowed before dinner hence more people gathered during evening time to consume drink before dinner

hence D
A SMALL TOWN GUY
Join the discussion