Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 23 Oct 2014, 13:37

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Aug 2011
Posts: 409
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 67 [0], given: 82

The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink] New post 26 Sep 2012, 10:45
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  75% (hard)

Question Stats:

50% (02:50) correct 50% (02:18) wrong based on 154 sessions
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.
b)The sales tax in Prohibitionland is lower on food and beverages than it is on other consumer goods, such as clothing.
c)The consumption of alcoholic beverages in Prohibitionland has been on a gradual decline the last 20 years.
d)The restrictions on alcoholic beverages enacted last year allowed for the service of drinks beginning around dinnertime each evening.
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.

guyz..plz do explain in detail.. m not geting the answer yet..even i read it its OE.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

Bole So Nehal.. Sat Siri Akal.. Waheguru ji help me to get 700+ score !

Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: faciendo quod indiget fieri
Joined: 13 Mar 2012
Posts: 88
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 4

Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the se [#permalink] New post 26 Sep 2012, 12:07
l will try and explain, hope it helps you.

We have to find a statement that supports the people protesting against the ban of alcohol in prohibitionland as they say they will lose moNey if the ban is enacted.

Now we are given that at places where ban was enacted the sales rose by 50 percent and where it was not enacted it rose by 30 percent. The mystery is that how come even after the ban there was a rise of 50 percent. This is solved by D that since even after the ban they were allowed to sell drinks in the evening, people were drinking heavily in those hours and thus the dramatic increase in sales.

Now if a complete ban on sales is there then the provinces which had an increase of 30 percent will go to zero thus supporting the ban against prohibition and supporting people that they will lose money.

Hope this helps. ThanKs
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 May 2012
Posts: 77
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 16

Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the se [#permalink] New post 26 Sep 2012, 14:42
I answered incorrectly, but my explanations are below for the correct answer

This is a support question - so we can accept new information from the answers to bridge the gap even if not stated in the argument.

Also another important point need to be considered in this argument is difference between BAN & RESTRICTION

sanjoo 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. - short-term negative impact? does not completely support why proprietors are against the ban
b)The sales tax in Prohibitionland is lower on food and beverages than it is on other consumer goods, such as clothing. - clothing? out of scope
c)The consumption of alcoholic beverages in Prohibitionland has been on a gradual decline the last 20 years. - gradual decline doesn't support why the proprietors are against the ban
d)The restrictions on alcoholic beverages enacted last year allowed for the service of drinks beginning around dinnertime each evening. - Correct - Argument states that RESTRICTIONS increase sales. The RESTRICTION to start drinking around dinnertime will boost sales and that is what proprietors want
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. - Proprietors care about overall tax revenue? They don't
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Aug 2011
Posts: 409
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 67 [0], given: 82

Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the se [#permalink] New post 26 Sep 2012, 21:14
adineo wrote:
l will try and explain, hope it helps you.

We have to find a statement that supports the people protesting against the ban of alcohol in prohibitionland as they say they will lose moNey if the ban is enacted.

Now we are given that at places where ban was enacted the sales rose by 50 percent and where it was not enacted it rose by 30 percent. The mystery is that how come even after the ban there was a rise of 50 percent. This is solved by D that since even after the ban they were allowed to sell drinks in the evening, people were drinking heavily in those hours and thus the dramatic increase in sales.

Now if a complete ban on sales is there then the provinces which had an increase of 30 percent will go to zero thus supporting the ban against prohibition and supporting people that they will lose money.

Hope this helps. ThanKs



Thanks for ur reply :) nice explanation..:) but .....
Proprietors of restaurants in Prohibitionland are protesting the ban on the grounds that it will reduce their revenues and profits.

Is this line convey that this will be the complete ban?? .. If stimulus saying that 50% increase in sales, Bt choice D saying "The restrictions on alcoholic beverages enacted last year allowed for the service of drinks beginning around dinnertime each evening".. Then this choice is weakend the propertier's argument..because Proprieter are again the ban .. bt this ban still allow the allow for service of dinks around dinner time, and this dinner time service will increase there sales 50%..
_________________

Bole So Nehal.. Sat Siri Akal.. Waheguru ji help me to get 700+ score !

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Aug 2011
Posts: 409
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 67 [0], given: 82

Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the se [#permalink] New post 26 Sep 2012, 21:16
sanjoo wrote:
adineo wrote:
l will try and explain, hope it helps you.

We have to find a statement that supports the people protesting against the ban of alcohol in prohibitionland as they say they will lose moNey if the ban is enacted.

Now we are given that at places where ban was enacted the sales rose by 50 percent and where it was not enacted it rose by 30 percent. The mystery is that how come even after the ban there was a rise of 50 percent. This is solved by D that since even after the ban they were allowed to sell drinks in the evening, people were drinking heavily in those hours and thus the dramatic increase in sales.

Now if a complete ban on sales is there then the provinces which had an increase of 30 percent will go to zero thus supporting the ban against prohibition and supporting people that they will lose money.

Hope this helps. ThanKs



Thanks for ur reply :) nice explanation..:) but .....

Proprietors of restaurants in Prohibitionland are protesting the ban on the grounds that it will reduce their revenues and profits.

Is this line convey that this will be the complete ban?? .. If stimulus saying that 50% increase in sales, Bt choice D saying "The restrictions on alcoholic beverages enacted last year allowed for the service of drinks beginning around dinnertime each evening".. Then this choice is weakend the propertier's argument..because Proprieter are against the ban .. bt this ban still allow the allow for service of dinks around dinner time, and this dinner time service will increase there sales by 50%..


Thank u if any one can explain it.
_________________

Bole So Nehal.. Sat Siri Akal.. Waheguru ji help me to get 700+ score !

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 06 Mar 2012
Posts: 36
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, International Business
GPA: 3.4
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 12

Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the se [#permalink] New post 27 Sep 2012, 08:06

Sanjoo,

"The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the service of alcoholic beverages" - shows it will be a complete ban.


Proprietors protest on grounds that the ban will reduce their revenues and profits. Even if there are certain restrictions - like serve alcohol beginning dinner time, this cannot guarantee no reduction in revenues or profits. If the restaurants were serving alcohol whole day due to which their revenues are pretty high, This restriction will be a better option to chose than a complete ban. Restriction, however, will still lead to losses (lesser).

how could a sales tax increase by 50% if this restriction was enforced - The reason may be - that earlier those restaurants were not serving alcohol, after restriction they started serving. Anyways whatever the reason be - the sales tax increase by 50% in restricted areas and 30% in non-restricted areas could be because of some other reason.

Given an option, i would chose D but This question looks flawed and unconvincing.



Press +1 Kudos if you like my reply
Expert Post
4 KUDOS received
Manhattan GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 08 May 2012
Posts: 51
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 770 Q50 V47
Followers: 188

Kudos [?]: 157 [4] , given: 4

Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the se [#permalink] New post 29 Sep 2012, 22:29
4
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
vmdce129907 wrote:

Sanjoo,

"The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the service of alcoholic beverages" - shows it will be a complete ban.


Proprietors protest on grounds that the ban will reduce their revenues and profits. Even if there are certain restrictions - like serve alcohol beginning dinner time, this cannot guarantee no reduction in revenues or profits. If the restaurants were serving alcohol whole day due to which their revenues are pretty high, This restriction will be a better option to chose than a complete ban. Restriction, however, will still lead to losses (lesser).

how could a sales tax increase by 50% if this restriction was enforced - The reason may be - that earlier those restaurants were not serving alcohol, after restriction they started serving. Anyways whatever the reason be - the sales tax increase by 50% in restricted areas and 30% in non-restricted areas could be because of some other reason.

Given an option, i would chose D but This question looks flawed and unconvincing.



Press +1 Kudos if you like my reply


vmdce129907 wrote:

Sanjoo,

"The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the service of alcoholic beverages" - shows it will be a complete ban.


Proprietors protest on grounds that the ban will reduce their revenues and profits. Even if there are certain restrictions - like serve alcohol beginning dinner time, this cannot guarantee no reduction in revenues or profits. If the restaurants were serving alcohol whole day due to which their revenues are pretty high, This restriction will be a better option to chose than a complete ban. Restriction, however, will still lead to losses (lesser).

how could a sales tax increase by 50% if this restriction was enforced - The reason may be - that earlier those restaurants were not serving alcohol, after restriction they started serving. Anyways whatever the reason be - the sales tax increase by 50% in restricted areas and 30% in non-restricted areas could be because of some other reason.

Given an option, i would chose D but This question looks flawed and unconvincing.



Press +1 Kudos if you like my reply


Great conversation already on this one, but I'll chime in since this problem is actually from a Manhattan GMAT practice CAT.

It's a pretty convoluted passage, so let me first simplify:

Proprietors: We don't want a ban, since that will reduce our revenues.
Counterpoint: Some counties have restrictions, and taxes paid by restaurants in those counties rose more quickly than they did in other counties.

Our goal is to support the proprietors' argument. To do so, we need to explain the increase in tax revenues in "restriction" counties. The only way to do this is to exploit the distinction between "restriction" and "ban". Remember, you're not allowed to bring in outside knowledge, but you are allowed to know the definition of the words used! A restriction is less, well, restrictive than a full ban.

Only (D) exploits this issue in the counterpoint. Sure, a restriction might not damage the proprietors' revenue, but if (D) is true then it's still possible that a full ban might negatively affect those revenues.

A couple major takeaways:

1. Pay attention to the exact wording of the argument.
2. Watch out for arguments that try to generalize from the specific (a restriction on alcohol) to the more general (a full ban).
_________________


Mark Sullivan | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Seattle, WA


Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile


Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Aug 2011
Posts: 409
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 67 [0], given: 82

Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the se [#permalink] New post 30 Sep 2012, 11:26
MarkSullivan wrote:
vmdce129907 wrote:

Sanjoo,

"The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the service of alcoholic beverages" - shows it will be a complete ban.


Proprietors protest on grounds that the ban will reduce their revenues and profits. Even if there are certain restrictions - like serve alcohol beginning dinner time, this cannot guarantee no reduction in revenues or profits. If the restaurants were serving alcohol whole day due to which their revenues are pretty high, This restriction will be a better option to chose than a complete ban. Restriction, however, will still lead to losses (lesser).

how could a sales tax increase by 50% if this restriction was enforced - The reason may be - that earlier those restaurants were not serving alcohol, after restriction they started serving. Anyways whatever the reason be - the sales tax increase by 50% in restricted areas and 30% in non-restricted areas could be because of some other reason.

Given an option, i would chose D but This question looks flawed and unconvincing.



Press +1 Kudos if you like my reply


vmdce129907 wrote:

Sanjoo,

"The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the service of alcoholic beverages" - shows it will be a complete ban.


Proprietors protest on grounds that the ban will reduce their revenues and profits. Even if there are certain restrictions - like serve alcohol beginning dinner time, this cannot guarantee no reduction in revenues or profits. If the restaurants were serving alcohol whole day due to which their revenues are pretty high, This restriction will be a better option to chose than a complete ban. Restriction, however, will still lead to losses (lesser).

how could a sales tax increase by 50% if this restriction was enforced - The reason may be - that earlier those restaurants were not serving alcohol, after restriction they started serving. Anyways whatever the reason be - the sales tax increase by 50% in restricted areas and 30% in non-restricted areas could be because of some other reason.

Given an option, i would chose D but This question looks flawed and unconvincing.



Press +1 Kudos if you like my reply


Great conversation already on this one, but I'll chime in since this problem is actually from a Manhattan GMAT practice CAT.

It's a pretty convoluted passage, so let me first simplify:

Proprietors: We don't want a ban, since that will reduce our revenues.
Counterpoint: Some counties have restrictions, and taxes paid by restaurants in those counties rose more quickly than they did in other counties.

Our goal is to support the proprietors' argument. To do so, we need to explain the increase in tax revenues in "restriction" counties. The only way to do this is to exploit the distinction between "restriction" and "ban". Remember, you're not allowed to bring in outside knowledge, but you are allowed to know the definition of the words used! A restriction is less, well, restrictive than a full ban.

Only (D) exploits this issue in the counterpoint. Sure, a restriction might not damage the proprietors' revenue, but if (D) is true then it's still possible that a full ban might negatively affect those revenues.

A couple major takeaways:

1. Pay attention to the exact wording of the argument.
2. Watch out for arguments that try to generalize from the specific (a restriction on alcohol) to the more general (a full ban).



Ohh thanks alot for reply..!!

i got that u r trying to say.. banning and resticting makes the differnce in stimulus..

Yup.. now i got that..

in choice D he wants to say that restrictions were allowed diner time drinking bt banning may decrease revenue..!! thats the point here

thank u..!
_________________

Bole So Nehal.. Sat Siri Akal.. Waheguru ji help me to get 700+ score !

SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 2300
Followers: 277

Kudos [?]: 66 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink] New post 22 Jan 2014, 01:18
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the   [#permalink] 22 Jan 2014, 01:18
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
5 Consider this sentence: Well-informed people know that jagveerbrar 1 10 Oct 2011, 09:14
The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the KissGMAT 4 28 Jun 2010, 09:22
The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the 11MBA 7 16 Nov 2009, 12:20
7 Experts publish their posts in the topic The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the applecrisp 43 09 Dec 2007, 16:27
Consider To be saurabhmalpani 10 07 May 2005, 17:55
Display posts from previous: Sort by

The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.