canbtg 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.
This is a point valid only for a short term, which might not be valid for a longer duration.

B. The sales tax in Prohibitionland is lower on food and beverages than it is on other consumer goods, such as clothing.
Out of scope: Information about Clothing and other CG is irrelevant

C. The consumption of alcoholic beverages in Prohibitionland has been on a gradual decline the last 20 years.
Out of scope: We need the reasons for the ban and how it would reduce the profits.

D. The restrictions on alcoholic beverages enacted last year allowed for the service of drinks beginning around dinnertime each evening.
Presents a very small window to the proprietors to make some profit. Strong contender.

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 can be an assumption of the argument but doesnt present any fact to prove that ban would actually reduce their profits. Argument says that (implies that) the ban is NOT BAD because the S.T. paid was higher in the areas of the ban than in the areas without the ban. The ways S.T. could be higher: The sales of the beverages increased, the tax rate increased etc. E rules out the latter, implying that the ban would be good for increasing the sales but we want to prove otherwise.