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.

Vorland

Expert replies
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.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

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
Join the discussion

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.
Join the discussion

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.
Join the discussion

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.
Join the discussion

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.
Join the discussion

by crackgmat007 » Mon Aug 03, 2009 6:54 pm
Ahh...I see the distinction now. outright ban vs few restrictions. Tx for the explanation.
Join the discussion

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 ??
Join the discussion

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
Join the discussion

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)
Join the discussion

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.
Join the discussion

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.
Join the discussion

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!! :/
Join the discussion