Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
May 1212:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Make the most of your break with the most realistic GMAT™ prep. Take up to $700 off select products.
May 1308:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
In Episode 4 of our GMAT Ninja CR series, we tackle the most intimidating CR question type: Boldface & "Legalese" questions. If you've ever stared at an answer choice that reads, "The first is a consideration introduced to counter a position that...- May 14
08:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
Most GMAT test-takers are intimidated by the hardest GMAT Verbal questions. In this session, Target Test Prep GMAT instructor Erika Tyler-John, a 100th percentile GMAT scorer, will show you how top scorers break down challenging Verbal questions..
14 May 2005, 05:04
Kudos
Bookmarks
N
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
(N/A)
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
0%
(00:00)
wrong
based on 0
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Please explain what we are trying to refute.
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.
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.
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
14 May 2005, 06:31
Kudos
Bookmarks
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.
This proves that restriction/lack of restriction has no impact on revenue, hence it undermines the original defense that tax revenue will go up when restriction is imposed.
This proves that restriction/lack of restriction has no impact on revenue, hence it undermines the original defense that tax revenue will go up when restriction is imposed.
14 May 2005, 11:28
Kudos
Bookmarks
(D) for me. I easily eliminated (E). I may be wrong, but here are my thoughts:
The argument says that the govt gets more money (revenue) in those restaurants in vorland where smoking is banned and this, IMO, is what we should target to undermine/refute.
(E) says that govt rev. from sales tax have been equal, ban or no ban. This does not directly undermine the argument above.
(D) however, seems to do so because it gives us a probable reason why the revenues generated in those areas are higher. maybe more people go to these restaurants since they are allowed to smoke in a separate room.
The argument says that the govt gets more money (revenue) in those restaurants in vorland where smoking is banned and this, IMO, is what we should target to undermine/refute.
(E) says that govt rev. from sales tax have been equal, ban or no ban. This does not directly undermine the argument above.
(D) however, seems to do so because it gives us a probable reason why the revenues generated in those areas are higher. maybe more people go to these restaurants since they are allowed to smoke in a separate room.
