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

Redeem

Vorland

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:57 pm
Thanked: 15 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:690

Vorland

by crackgmat007 » Mon Aug 03, 2009 7:39 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.

OA to follow. Pls provide reasoning for your answers.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 3:55 am
Thanked: 17 times

by madhur_ahuja » Mon Aug 03, 2009 8:27 am
IMO D.


This clearly undermines this statement.

The objection that the ban would reduce restaurants’ revenues is ill founded
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 12:17 pm
Thanked: 12 times
GMAT Score:680

by 4seasoncentre » Mon Aug 03, 2009 8:31 am
A) Short term impact is not really relevant.
B) Not really concerned with rate, as long as it has remained consistent.
C) This would help offset any decrease in revenue due to the ban.
D) I think this is the correct answer. If under the 'restrictions' in the town, patrons are still allowed to smoke, then it does not reflect the impact of the 'ban' that is proposed.
E) Supports the argument of the government because it indicates increased sales in restaurants over and above an increase in general sales revenue in said towns.
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:19 am

by shoh0ku » Mon Aug 03, 2009 8:36 am
IMO D

D shows that restrictions on smoking did not lead to increased revenue, because restaurants maintained smoking areas.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:57 pm
Thanked: 15 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:690

by crackgmat007 » Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:40 am
Can someone explain in detail as to what the argument is, what is being defended and what need to be weakened and how D weakens? Tx.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 211
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 12:17 pm
Thanked: 12 times
GMAT Score:680

by 4seasoncentre » Mon Aug 03, 2009 4:54 pm
The plan is to invoke a ban on smoking in restaurants.

The objection is that it will negatively impact restaurants' revenue.

The defence is that towns with restrictions on smoking have experienced an increase in restaurant revenue.

D weakens the defence, because it tells us that the restrictions in those town allowed for smoking in restaurants, albeit in specified areas. The government's plan is not for restrictions, but an outright ban. We can not compare the results of restrictions to the results of a potential ban.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 882
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:57 pm
Thanked: 15 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:690

by crackgmat007 » Mon Aug 03, 2009 6:54 pm
Ahh...I see the distinction now. outright ban vs few restrictions. Tx for the explanation.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 503
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 9:53 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:2 members

by mmslf75 » Sat Dec 26, 2009 11:06 pm
crackgmat007 wrote: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.

OA to follow. Pls provide reasoning for your answers.

Is the author assuming that in many of the towns that restrict smoking in restaurants, it was a FULL BAN...

and D is the answer because, it points out that it was not a FULL BAN that the restaurants observed ??
Top
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:13 pm
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:164 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Sun Jan 03, 2010 12:37 am
Is the author assuming that in many of the towns that restrict smoking in restaurants, it was a FULL BAN...

and D is the answer because, it points out that it was not a FULL BAN that the restaurants observed ??
Yes, that's correct. One assumption of the argument is that the "smoking restrictions" (third line of the passage) meant that these restaurants did not allow any smoking whatsoever.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 217
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 1:39 pm
Thanked: 7 times
Followed by:1 members

by zaarathelab » Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:34 pm
The stimulus suggests that the govt thinks that contrary to what the restaurant ownwers think: the govt's ban on smoking has increased the restaurant's revenues and hence smoking does not contribute to restaurant revenues. So we need to find an answer choice that refutes this.

CHOICE D does this by saying that inspite of the complete ban, restaurants encourage smoking by having smoking areas, suggesting that smoking contributes to attracting customers and hence revenues.
Success = Max(Hardwork) + Min(Luck)
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 627
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:12 am
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:1 members

by mankey » Tue Nov 08, 2011 9:55 am
Can someone please explain how others options are placed in the given context of the question?

Thanks.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 242
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2008 8:49 am
Location: Delhi
Thanked: 6 times

by ranjeet75 » Wed Nov 09, 2011 6:34 am
Yes D should be the answer because the govt is planning for complete ban but D says that the town where smoking is prohibited in restaurants has not completely banned the smoking but made a separate area where smoking is permitted and it may affected positively and more customers has attracted and therefore more collections made.

Hence, the plan of the government to ban completely is undermined.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:18 pm
Location: Delhi, India
Thanked: 13 times
Followed by:9 members

by vaibhavgupta » Mon Nov 14, 2011 6:18 am
crackgmat007 wrote: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.

OA to follow. Pls provide reasoning for your answers.
i would go for B
If OA is A, IMO B
If OA is B, IMO C
If OA is C, IMO D
If OA is D, IMO E
If OA is E, IMO A

FML!! :/
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1