A local councilman has proposed a sin tax on alcoholic beverages

Question

A local councilman has proposed a “sin tax” on alcoholic beverages served in area bars. The councilman believes that since the amount of the tax alone will exceed the cost of most non-alcoholic beverages, many people will switch from alcohol to other beverages.

Which of the following statements, if true, would most clearly indicate a vulnerability in the councilman’s argument?

A. Both beer and hard liquor will be taxed under the councilman’s proposal.
B. The cost of alcoholic beverages is already considerably higher than that of any non-alcoholic beverage.
C. Many people abstain from alcohol for moral or religious reasons.
D. The “sin tax” should apply to cigarettes instead because smoking causes more preventable deaths than does alcohol.
E. Many bar patrons consume more alcohol on days when they are paid.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:
 
  Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler

Sonatomar · Answer

People already pay significantly more for alcohol → yet they still choose it. When an argument says “Increase price → people will stop buying,” look for evidence that people aren't very price-sensitive.

Vivek1707 · Answer

A.This just describes which drinks are taxed. It doesn't expose any flaw in the argument.
B. Correct: Alcohol is already much more expensive than soft drinks, yet people still buy it. So making the price gap even bigger doesn't necessarily mean they'll switch.
C. People who already avoid alcohol don't tell us how drinkers will respond to the tax.
D. This argues for a different policy, not against the councilman's reasoning.
E. People may drink more on payday, but that doesn't say whether the tax will change their behavior.

dhart · Answer

A. Both beer and hard liquor will be taxed under the councilman’s proposal.
B. The cost of alcoholic beverages is already considerably higher than that of any non-alcoholic beverage.
Still drinking , then cost is not an issue , they must be enjoying it and continue , this creates vulnerability that non-alchoholic sale will increase. Looks Right
C. Many people abstain from alcohol for moral or religious reasons and may be sin taxing can reduce buyouts it blosters the councilman's argument
D. The “sin tax” should apply to cigarettes instead because smoking causes more preventable deaths than does alcohol. it Out of scope
E. Many bar patrons consume more alcohol on days when they are paid. PAyment day consumption isnt mentioned in the para

Lovelydaisyohhh · Answer

Yeah B is the answer 
A questions the authority of the council men.
B states the alcohol as an addiction enjoyment despite of higher price.
C states the religious reason which isnt even supported by the premise.
D states about cigarettes which is out of scope too.
E states the time of consumption which necessarily doesnt affect the tax and demand relation.

pappal · Answer

all options except B are totally out of context to the argument.

Minka99 · Answer

B is the only answer that explains sufficiently why the council man's argument is not effective. Alcohol is already higher in price than other drinks and people still purchase it. This means they are not price sensitive. CAREFUL, do not assume that there is some price where this will change - that would be your own assumption!

Bunuel · Answer

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

Identify the Question Type:

The word "vulnerability" at first might signal that this is a Flaw question. However, the question wants to know which of the answer choices, if true, would show that vulnerability. Since the choices are statements that add something new, and the question is about the effect of those statements on the argument, this is a Weaken question.

Untangle the Stimulus:

The councilman's conclusion is hinted by the keywords, "the councilman believes that." However, what comes immediately after that is not the conclusion, but the entire argument, starting with the evidence. This stimulus contains a very common structure: Since A, B. “Since” is a keyword for evidence, so what comes immediately after it is evidence. But the evidence only continues up to the comma. What comes after the comma is the conclusion. In this case, the conclusion is that many people will switch from alcohol to other beverages. The evidence, then, is that the amount of the new “sin tax” is itself greater than the cost of most non-alcoholic beverages.

Predict the Answer:

Why does the councilman think a huge tax will convince the drinkers of alcohol to switch? The councilman must be assuming that cost is an important, if not the primary, factor drinkers consider when ordering drinks.

A weakener attacks the assumption of the argument, making the conclusion less likely to follow from the evidence. Here, the answer will be a statement that makes it less likely that the cost of the tax will make people switch to non-alcoholic drinks. It will suggest that the relative costs of alcoholic versus non-alcoholic beverages is not so important to alcohol drinkers. Usually a general prediction like this is all that's possible with weaken or strengthen questions. Since the choices are stating new information, there is usually no way of knowing what the test-maker will come up with. Keep the general prediction in mind when going through the choices, and the answer will stand out.

Eliminate the Wrong Answer Choices:

(B) is correct , conforming to the general prediction. If the cost of alcoholic beverages is already considerably higher than that of any non-alcoholic beverage, then the price difference didn't seem to dissuade people in the first place. People were already paying a much higher price for alcoholic beverages, which makes it less likely they will be swayed to switch drinks by an additional tax.

(A) is irrelevant. It clarifies the types of beverages being taxed, but says nothing to make it less likely that the drinkers of such beverages will switch to non-alcoholic beverages.

(C) is out of scope. People who do not drink alcohol will not be affected by the councilman’s proposal. The argument concerns the effect of the new tax on those who do drink alcoholic beverages.

(D) is out of scope. Cigarettes have absolutely no bearing on this argument, which is only concerned with the effect of a new tax on alcohol. Don't lose sight of the argument's evidence and conclusion!

(E) is a 180. If people drink more alcohol on payday, this suggests that perhaps the cost of alcohol is a factor in their decision to choose alcohol over non-alcoholic beverages. The councilman’s proposal would then be strengthened.

TAKEAWAY:  With Weaken questions, be clear on the evidence and conclusion, and then pick the choice that makes it less likely that the conclusion follows from that evidence.

TheAdmissionHub · Answer

A local councilman has proposed a “sin tax” on alcoholic beverages served in area bars. The councilman believes that since the amount of the tax alone will exceed the cost of most non-alcoholic beverages, many people will switch from alcohol to other beverages.
 Premise 1:  A local councilman has proposed a “sin tax” on alcoholic beverages served in area bars.
 Premise 2 : the amount of the tax alone will exceed the cost of most non-alcoholic beverages
 Conclusion:  The councilman believes that since the amount of the tax alone will exceed the cost of most non-alcoholic beverages, many people will switch from alcohol to other beverages.
  Reasoning :  Notice the disconnect beetween the premise and the conclusion . We just know that a sin tax on alcohol has been proposed. And then we know that The councilman believes that since the amount of the tax alone will exceed the cost of most non-alcoholic beverages, many people will switch from alcohol to other beverages.  There’s a disconnect and it is about this cost. So people will switch to no alcoholic beverages because of the cost. This is the implicIT assumption or disconnect detectable in the text and useful for the argument to work. 
 Now we need to prove that the argument is flawed. And the best way to do taht is attacking the assumption supporting the conclusion , the implicit connection of the reasoning.  So we need a answer saying that this switch is unlikely to happen actually.
  
 Which of the following statements, if true, would most clearly indicate a vulnerability in the councilman’s argument?
 
  A . Both beer and hard liquor will be taxed under the councilman’s proposal.
 Wrong:  adds up an extra point. Focus in on alcoholic generally speaking. We need to find a vulnerability in the fact that since the amount of the tax alone will exceed the cost of most non-alcoholic beverages, many people will switch from alcohol to other beverages.
  B.  The cost of alcoholic beverages is already considerably higher than that of any non-alcoholic beverage.
 Correct:  this gives us reason to believe that it’s not true that since the amount of the tax alone will exceed the cost of most non-alcoholic beverages, many people will switch from alcohol to other beverages. It got us thinking that people are unconcerned about the price, so it’s unlikely that they switch.
  C.  Many people abstain from alcohol for moral or religious reasons.
 Wrong:  focus is on the switching because of the given above reason.
  D . The “sin tax” should apply to cigarettes instead because smoking causes more preventable deaths than does alcohol.
 Wrong:  alternatives don’t attack the link between premises and conclusion. Ok, let’s apply them to cigarettes instead, but we do question that people will switch from alcohol to other beverages because alcohol’s price spike due to the tax? No. So it’s not the correct answer.
  E.  Many bar patrons consume more alcohol on days when they are paid.
 Wrong:  Narrow focus. People in general is the focus and price that they accept to pay is the unstated assumption to attack.

A local councilman has proposed a sin tax on alcoholic beverages

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

­A local councilman has proposed a sin tax on alcoholic beverages

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

A local councilman has proposed a sin tax on alcoholic beverages