Interested to hear explanation for this one



The opposite "slot machine license causes residents to gamble LESS" would invalidate the argument, so the opposite must be true now? Missing what?

D. It is possible that "slot machines being legal" would result in MORE gambling in homes, and more financial trouble. So "home gambling" and "financial trouble" are not mutually exclusive

why option D?

The argument talks nothing about their gambling at home explicitly. How did you arrive at this answer? Kindly explain

I would also think it is A.



My explanation for D
People gamble at home because they have no other place to do so. When the city installs slot-machines, people gamble more than they would at home, increasing the tax income of the city.
Let's turn around statement D to understand it better:
If there were no slot-machines, people would simply gamble at home.
But at home they gamble less, which is why the tax income would be less, but it would be better for the residents.
The only conclusion this leads me to is A? Still believe A is correct :D

My explanation for the answer D.

In the question, notice this phrase: "if they start gambling more".
This implies that the residents are currently gambling somewhere else. Since slot machines aren't available in the town as of yet, option D explains where they are gambling.

If you allow slot machine gambling, in addition to gambling at home, the residents would gamble "more".

The argument presented in the question hinges on the word more. If slot machines are available, the residents would gamble at home as well as at the slot machines and might have financial problems.

Thus option D is the correct option.

Hope this helps.

Posted from my mobile device

D definitely does not seem a great option. Premise mentions "residents gambling more". A brings that out. Option D does not mention the extent to which residents would continue to gamble.

Similar Question:

Although the school would receive financial benefits if it had soft drink vending machines in the cafeteria, we should not allow them. Allowing soft drink machines there would not be in our students' interest. If our students start drinking more soft drinks, they will be less healthy.

The argument depends on which of the following?


(A) If the soft drink vending machines were placed in the cafeteria, students would consume more soft drinks as a result.

(B) The amount of soft drinks that most students at the school currently drink is not detrimental to their health.

(C) Students are apt to be healthier if they do not drink soft drinks at all than if they just drink small amounts occasionally.

(D) Students will not simply bring soft drinks from home if the soft drink vending machines are not placed in the cafeteria.

(E) The school's primary concern should be to promote good health among its students.


The Answer is A not D.

VeritasKarishma

Please explain why it is not A.

Thank you

The answer is (A) in the official question here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/although-the ... l#p2740835

For the gambling question too the answer would be (A) only. It is an absolute copy of the official soft drink question except that option (D) has been messed up and I don't even understand what they mean by it. Ignore the gambling question and just focus on the soft drink question.
_________________