Weaken

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:09 am
Location: India
Thanked: 6 times

Weaken

by kiranlegend » Wed Jul 23, 2008 6:24 am
Vorland’s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking in restaurants. The
objection that the ban would reduce restaurants’ revenues is ill founded. Several towns in
Vorland enacted restaurant smoking restrictions five years ago. Since then, the amount
the government collects in restaurant meal taxes in those towns has increased 34 percent,
on average, but only 26 percent elsewhere in Vorland. The amount collected in
restaurant meal taxes closely reflects restaurants’ revenues.
Which of the following, if true, most undermines the defense of the government’s plan?
A. When the state first imposed a restaurant meal tax, opponents predicted that
restaurants’ revenues would decline as a result, a prediction that proved to be
correct in the short term.
B. The tax on meals in restaurants is higher than the tax on many other goods and
services.
C. Over the last five years, smoking has steadily declined throughout Vorland.
D. In many of the towns that restrict smoking in restaurants, restaurants can maintain
separate dining areas where smoking is permitted.
E. Over the last five years, government revenues from sales taxes have grown no
faster in the towns with restaurant smoking restrictions than in the towns that have
no such restrictions.

what is the conclusion here?
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Legendary Member
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:35 pm
Thanked: 56 times

by raunekk » Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:26 am
IMO:D

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:09 am
Location: India
Thanked: 6 times

by kiranlegend » Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:52 am
raunekk wrote:IMO:D
raunekk, that is abs. correct.. conclusion pls?

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 10:36 pm

by rolodex » Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:35 am
Premise1: Vorland’s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking in restaurants.

Conclusion1: The objection that the ban would reduce restaurants’ revenues is ill founded.

Premise2: Several towns in Vorland enacted restaurant smoking restrictions five years ago. Since then, the amount the government collects in restaurant meal taxes in those towns has increased 34 percent,
on average, but only 26 percent elsewhere in Vorland.

Premise 3: The amount collected in restaurant meal taxes closely reflects restaurants’ revenues. (this looks like the conclusion but it is not)

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 2:26 am

by khanshainur » Wed May 11, 2016 3:12 am
I will Go with option D in this case