NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 23 Apr 2024, 12:14 It is currently 23 Apr 2024, 12:14
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking

SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
 1   2   
Tags:
Find Similar Topics 
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
ankit0411
BSchool Moderator
Joined: 28 May 2012
Posts: 83
Own Kudos [?]: 416 [121]
Given Kudos: 11
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Anderson '15 Ross '15 Kenan-Flagler '15 Tepper '15
GPA: 3.33
WE:Information Technology (Retail)
Send PM
Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking [#permalink] New post   Updated on: 06 Jun 2019, 05:40
8
Kudos
112
Bookmarks
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

61% (02:22) correct 39% (02:41) wrong based on 2982 sessions
Hide Show timer Statistics
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.
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
D

Originally posted by ankit0411 on 15 Sep 2012, 09:22.
Last edited by BillyZ on 06 Jun 2019, 05:40, edited 2 times in total.
Formatted
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
L
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6917
Own Kudos [?]: 63648 [16]
Given Kudos: 1773
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking [#permalink] New post   15 Feb 2018, 23:12
9
Kudos
7
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
aaba wrote:
hello, I did choose D as the correct answer, but I cannot understand how D can connect anything with the premises or the conclusion of the argument. Please help me to understand such gmat method in CR questions.

Thanks.

Quote:
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.

The key is to notice that the government is considering a BAN on smoking in restaurants. To defend the ban, the author of the passage uses evidence from a RESTRICTION on smoking in restaurants. Imposing a ban might be much different than imposing restrictions.

Choice (D) illustrates this point. The restaurants in towns with restrictions were fine because, despite the restrictions, those restaurants could allow customers to smoke in separate dining areas. If those towns had smoking bans instead of smoking restrictions, separate dining areas for smokers would not be allowed and perhaps revenues would decrease.

The author's evidence suggests that revenues might not decrease when smoking restrictions are implemented. But this doesn't necessarily provide any evidence related to the effect of a smoking ban.

If choice (D) is true, then the author's argument falls apart, so (D) is the best answer.

TaN1213 wrote:
GMATNinja,
Hello,

What if the government has increased the % of tax collected from restaurants , say the tax % has increased to 10% from 5%, in such case the amount the government collects in restaurant meal taxes in those towns can increase 34 percent, on average, but only 26 percent elsewhere in Vorland. E excludes this possibility and hence, undermines the conclusion.
Where as 'can' in D doesn't guarantee that the restaurants have adopted this measure.
What am I missing?

Thank you

Choice (E) does not actually tell us whether meal tax rates were increased or decreased. Choice (E) simply tells us that total revenue from SALES taxes (much more general than just meal taxes) did not grow any faster in towns with restrictions. Even if choice (E) is true, revenue from MEAL taxes may have grown faster in towns with restrictions. The restaurants in the towns with restrictions may have done very well, while other kinds of shops did very well in the towns WITHOUT restrictions.

In that case, the total sales taxes may have increased by about the same amount in all towns, even though restaurants in towns with the restrictions did much better than restaurants in other towns. So even if (E) is true, the defense of the plan may not be undermined. Yes, we can think of a situation in which (E) is true and the author's argument is weakened. But without further information, we don't know whether (E) undermines the defense of the plan.

Remember that we are not trying to PROVE that the government's plan will fail. We are only looking for the answer choice that MOST undermines the defense of the plan. We could certainly come up with scenarios in which (D) is true and the plan is not undermined. But (D) undermines the defense of the plan more than any of the other choice, so it is the best answer.
User avatar
piyatiwari
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 28 Jun 2009
Posts: 314
Own Kudos [?]: 422 [6]
Given Kudos: 46
Location: United States (MA)
Send PM
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking [#permalink] New post   15 Sep 2012, 11:33
4
Kudos
2
Bookmarks
D is the right one.

Conclusion : The objection that the ban would reduce restaurants’ revenues is ill founded. >> Ban would not reduce revenues
Defence: Other towns where restaurants ban smoking show incresed revenue

To undermine the defence, we need to either show that the restuarents where smoking is banned have other resons for increased revenue OR Smoking is still permitted somehow.

Lets look at the answer choices:

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. >>> Talks about mean tax. Out of scope.
B. The tax on meals in restaurants is higher than the tax on many other goods and services. >>> Out of scope
C. Over the last five years, smoking has steadily declined throughout Vorland. >>> Out of scope
D. In many of the towns that restrict smoking in restaurants, restaurants can maintain separate dining areas where smoking is permitted. >>> Smoking is allowed, but under restrictions. Bingo! Answer!
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. >>> talks about same growth rate of sales taxes. Not adding any value.
General Discussion
User avatar
ankit0411
BSchool Moderator
Joined: 28 May 2012
Posts: 83
Own Kudos [?]: 416 [2]
Given Kudos: 11
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Anderson '15 Ross '15 Kenan-Flagler '15 Tepper '15
GPA: 3.33
WE:Information Technology (Retail)
Send PM
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking [#permalink] New post   15 Sep 2012, 12:41
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
piyatiwari wrote:
D is the right one.

Conclusion : The objection that the ban would reduce restaurants’ revenues is ill founded. >> Ban would not reduce revenues
Defence: Other towns where restaurants ban smoking show incresed revenue

To undermine the defence, we need to either show that the restuarents where smoking is banned have other resons for increased revenue OR Smoking is still permitted somehow.

Lets look at the answer choices:

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. >>> Talks about mean tax. Out of scope.
B. The tax on meals in restaurants is higher than the tax on many other goods and services. >>> Out of scope
C. Over the last five years, smoking has steadily declined throughout Vorland. >>> Out of scope
D. In many of the towns that restrict smoking in restaurants, restaurants can maintain separate dining areas where smoking is permitted. >>> Smoking is allowed, but under restrictions. Bingo! Answer!
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. >>> talks about same growth rate of sales taxes. Not adding any value.



Yea, I think I get it the other way .

Govt thinks that the ban is the reason for increased revenue ( that means smoking does not play any part in the revenue ).

To undermine this we come to D , which says smoking is allowed ( under restrictions) and this might be the cause to lure more customers .
User avatar
B
mashableforce
Intern
Intern
Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Posts: 12
Own Kudos [?]: 2 [0]
Given Kudos: 35
Concentration: Finance, General Management
Schools: HBS '17 Sloan '17 CBS '17 Yale '17
GMAT Date: 03-05-2013
GPA: 3.79
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking [#permalink] New post   10 Mar 2014, 09:33
ankit0411 wrote:
piyatiwari wrote:
D is the right one.

Conclusion : The objection that the ban would reduce restaurants’ revenues is ill founded. >> Ban would not reduce revenues
Defence: Other towns where restaurants ban smoking show incresed revenue

To undermine the defence, we need to either show that the restuarents where smoking is banned have other resons for increased revenue OR Smoking is still permitted somehow.

Lets look at the answer choices:

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. >>> Talks about mean tax. Out of scope.
B. The tax on meals in restaurants is higher than the tax on many other goods and services. >>> Out of scope
C. Over the last five years, smoking has steadily declined throughout Vorland. >>> Out of scope
D. In many of the towns that restrict smoking in restaurants, restaurants can maintain separate dining areas where smoking is permitted. >>> Smoking is allowed, but under restrictions. Bingo! Answer!
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. >>> talks about same growth rate of sales taxes. Not adding any value.



Yea, I think I get it the other way .

Govt thinks that the ban is the reason for increased revenue ( that means smoking does not play any part in the revenue ).

To undermine this we come to D , which says smoking is allowed ( under restrictions) and this might be the cause to lure more customers .


I am thinking the following way. The passage argues, by giving evidence, against the objection that the plan would decrease restaurant revenues. We are looking for an answer that undermines the argument. A potential answer could state that the revenues in certain town didn't increase due to smoking restrictions.

Answer D - Provides that restaurants can have have separate dining areas, one where smoking is allowed, and one where it's not. This means that these restaurants will attract both smokers and non-smokers, thus increasing the revenues.
avatar
exousia
Manager
Manager
Joined: 04 Sep 2012
Posts: 50
Own Kudos [?]: 29 [1]
Given Kudos: 8
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
Schools: IMD '17 (M)
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V35
WE:Brand Management (Consumer Products)
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking [#permalink] New post   15 Oct 2014, 02:30
1
Kudos
Let's try to simplify the question.

Conclusion: Smoking ban did not decrease revenues of restaurants
Support: in towns where smoking is banned, meal taxes are higher

So basically we need to find an answer that weakens the argument

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.
The argument has nothing to do with opponents, clearly out of scope
B. The tax on meals in restaurants is higher than the tax on many other goods and services.
Out of scope; even if the tax on meals are higher, it does not have any affect on the conclusion
C. Over the last five years, smoking has steadily declined throughout Vorland.
Out of scope
D. In many of the towns that restrict smoking in restaurants, restaurants can maintain separate dining areas where smoking is permitted.
Correct. Restaurants can still maintain a separate dining area to serve smokers. So if today these restaurants are not allowed to have such separate areas to serve these smokers then revenue will definitely be affected
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
out of scope, we are not concerned about "sales tax"
User avatar
G
rhine29388
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Nov 2015
Posts: 408
Own Kudos [?]: 125 [1]
Given Kudos: 231
Location: United States (LA)
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking [#permalink] New post   25 Jul 2016, 15:29
1
Kudos
options A,B and C are out of scope options
option E provides information which is not of much importance to the conclusion of the argument
option D is the clear weakener as it exposes the fact that smoking is still permitted somehow and not completely banned as the government intends to do
correct answer - D
avatar
S
somtsat99
Current Student
Joined: 10 Jan 2016
Status:MBA Candidate Class of 2020
Posts: 98
Own Kudos [?]: 83 [0]
Given Kudos: 1220
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
Schools: Rotman '20 (D) Sauder '20 (D) Ivey '19 (D) Schulich Sept 18 Intake (A$) ISB '19 (D) Alberta"20 (WD)
GMAT 1: 620 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 670 Q50 V31
GPA: 4
WE:Business Development (Consulting)
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking [#permalink] New post   07 Jul 2017, 08:37
In option D it says restaurants can maintain. So it looks like a suggestion not a statement.
Am I getting it wrong ?
User avatar
L
nightblade354
Current Student
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Status:He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Going to Business School -- Corruptus in Extremis
Posts: 1734
Own Kudos [?]: 5734 [1]
Given Kudos: 3054
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: Darden '25 (M)
Send PM
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking [#permalink] New post   19 Sep 2017, 05:18
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
somtsat99 wrote:
In option D it says restaurants can maintain. So it looks like a suggestion not a statement.
Am I getting it wrong ?


Hi somtsat99,

You are not wrong! The question, stated below, says that restaurants have the option to keep smoking. If this is true, then a restaurant with increased, or steady, revenue post-ban could be a result of the restaurant allowing smoking. But just because it is a suggestion doesn't hurt the strength of the answer for this question.

Gov't bans smoking --- restaurant doesn't lose money ----- Gov't says no smoking because the restaurants are fine without it.
How to weaken this? To show that smoking still helped the restaurant make money. This is answer D!

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.
User avatar
G
aaba
Manager
Manager
Joined: 08 Jan 2018
Posts: 169
Own Kudos [?]: 991 [0]
Given Kudos: 332
Location: United States (ID)
Schools: UC Davis '20 Anderson '20 SMU '19
GPA: 3.33
WE:Accounting (Accounting)
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking [#permalink] New post   07 Feb 2018, 10:48
hello, I did choose D as the correct answer, but I cannot understand how D can connect anything with the premises or the conclusion of the argument. Please help me to understand such gmat method in CR questions.

Thanks.
User avatar
L
gmatexam439
Moderator
Joined: 28 Mar 2017
Posts: 1090
Own Kudos [?]: 1970 [0]
Given Kudos: 200
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Technology
Schools: McDonough '21 (A$) Jones '21 (A$) Kelley '23 (A)
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V41
GPA: 4
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking [#permalink] New post   10 Feb 2018, 08:31
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. --Highlighted part is the conclusion

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.
Argument is about the impact of "smoking" ban on revenues. This choice is out of scope.

B. The tax on meals in restaurants is higher than the tax on many other goods and services.
This will be consistent throughout the country. This doesn't mean that the ban worked or didn't work. Out of scope.

C. Over the last five years, smoking has steadily declined throughout Vorland.
This should strengthen the argument because if the smoking is reducing then the ban should only help the restaurants.

D. In many of the towns that restrict smoking in restaurants, restaurants can maintain separate dining areas where smoking is permitted.
Correct.

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.
But the rate at which the tax from banned areas is increasing is higher than the rate from the areas where smoking is not banned. This would actually strengthen the argument.
User avatar
P
TaN1213
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Mar 2017
Posts: 369
Own Kudos [?]: 823 [0]
Given Kudos: 646
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Organizational Behavior
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Send PM
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking [#permalink] New post   13 Feb 2018, 06:35
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.
GMATNinja,
Hello,

What if the government has increased the % of tax collected from restaurants , say the tax % has increased to 10% from 5%, in such case the amount the government collects in restaurant meal taxes in those towns can increase 34 percent, on average, but only 26 percent elsewhere in Vorland. E excludes this possibility and hence, undermines the conclusion.
Where as 'can' in D doesn't guarantee that the restaurants have adopted this measure.
What am I missing?

Thank you
User avatar
L
aragonn
Retired Moderator
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 1267
Own Kudos [?]: 5649 [0]
Given Kudos: 416
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking [#permalink] New post   23 Apr 2018, 01:49
Pre-thinking: We need to weaken the government plan's defense. in other words, government’s plan will not be much of use. try to find out a loop hole out of it.

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. ---- We are looking for ban on smoke not meal tax.
B. The tax on meals in restaurants is higher than the tax on many other goods and services. --- irrelevant
C. Over the last five years, smoking has steadily declined throughout Vorland.---- not helping.
D. In many of the towns that restrict smoking in restaurants, restaurants can maintain separate dining areas where smoking is permitted. --- So this option is saying that suppose government imposes the ban but restaurant open smoking area which is legal. now government’s ban has no effect. this is what we are looking for.
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. --- irrelevant
User avatar
G
aaba
Manager
Manager
Joined: 08 Jan 2018
Posts: 169
Own Kudos [?]: 991 [0]
Given Kudos: 332
Location: United States (ID)
Schools: UC Davis '20 Anderson '20 SMU '19
GPA: 3.33
WE:Accounting (Accounting)
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking [#permalink] New post   23 Apr 2018, 10:25
The second time I solve this question, (I do not remember the argument or the answer), I can do it in 10 seconds by skimming the question. I combine the instinct, meaning, and patterns.
Perhaps, this is the best way to skip questions when time runs out.
User avatar
S
oasis90
Manager
Manager
Joined: 20 Jan 2016
Posts: 56
Own Kudos [?]: 61 [0]
Given Kudos: 68
Location: Canada
Schools: HBS '18
WE:Consulting (Other)
Send PM
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking [#permalink] New post   14 May 2018, 11:28
is this an OG question? Does not seem like it.
User avatar
P
sonusaini1
Manager
Manager
Joined: 15 Feb 2017
Posts: 243
Own Kudos [?]: 122 [0]
Given Kudos: 50
Send PM
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking [#permalink] New post   18 May 2019, 09:39
aragonn wrote:
Pre-thinking: We need to weaken the government plan's defense. in other words, government’s plan will not be much of use. try to find out a loop hole out of it.

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. ---- We are looking for ban on smoke not meal tax.
B. The tax on meals in restaurants is higher than the tax on many other goods and services. --- irrelevant
C. Over the last five years, smoking has steadily declined throughout Vorland.---- not helping.
D. In many of the towns that restrict smoking in restaurants, restaurants can maintain separate dining areas where smoking is permitted. --- So this option is saying that suppose government imposes the ban but restaurant open smoking area which is legal. now government’s ban has no effect. this is what we are looking for.
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. --- irrelevant


Hi aragonn,

Please help me to understand why not option C.

Option C says that smoking has declined throughout the vorland over the last five years.
What if the smokers quit on its on own without government efforts then the argument doesn't hold.

What is your thought?

Thanks

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
L
dcummins
VP
VP
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Posts: 1115
Own Kudos [?]: 2162 [0]
Given Kudos: 368
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
Schools: INSEAD Sept'21 Intake (WA$) Melbourne (A$) AGSM (A$) Kellogg '23 (WL) Said '22 (A$) CBS '23 (D) Booth '23 (D) Anderson '23 (WL) Cambridge '22 (WL) LBS '23 (D) Stern '24 (WA)
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33
GMAT 4: 650 Q44 V36
GMAT 5: 600 Q38 V35
GMAT 6: 710 Q47 V41
WE:Management Consulting (Consulting)
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking [#permalink] New post   05 Aug 2019, 19:40
The objection is based on the fact that some restaurants experienced increases in revenues.

D is correct because it shows that in many, not all, towns restaurants can maintain separate dining areas where smoking is permitted. This means that in some towns this may not be permitted, so we could infer the ban impacted revenues. But even better, what this allowance tells us is that the modified restaurants incorporated separate dining areas to entice both smokers and non-smokers, or smokers who wish to eat after or before they smoke.
User avatar
G
azhrhasan
Manager
Manager
Joined: 13 Apr 2019
Posts: 129
Own Kudos [?]: 147 [0]
Given Kudos: 93
Location: Canada
Concentration: Marketing, Operations
Schools: Rotman '23 (D) Ivey '22 (D) Schulich Sept '23 (WA)
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V35
GPA: 3.5
WE:General Management (Retail)
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking [#permalink] New post   26 Sep 2019, 04:33
ankit0411 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.


We need to weaken defense of government's plan.
govt plan: ban smoking
defense of government plan: no impact on revenue
undermine defense would mean that we need to show that with smoking ban, the revenue does drop. We need to look for an option which proves this.

A: Short term. Rejected
B: So what ? No impact. Rejected
C: Opposite. Rejected
D: Yes. This weakens the main premise and therefore, the conclusion
E: argument clearly that meal taxes are reflective of revenue. So, there is no need to look at any other tax

IMO D
User avatar
G
Basshead
Director
Director
Joined: 09 Jan 2020
Posts: 967
Own Kudos [?]: 223 [0]
Given Kudos: 434
Location: United States
Send PM
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking [#permalink] New post   15 Sep 2021, 03:56
This question is tricky because of the way its worded:

Which of the following, if true, most undermines the defense of the government’s plan?

What is the government's plan? Vorland’s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking in restaurants.
What is the defense of this plan? Restaurant meal taxes actually increased in towns that enacted smoking restrictions.

So to answer the question we need to find something that attacks the defense.

A, B, and C can be eliminated as they are out of scope or irrelevant.

In choice E, we're told government revenues from sales tax in general have grown no faster in the towns with restaurant smoking restrictions than in the towns that have no such restrictions. However, the defense only speaks to restaurant meal taxes, not sales tax in general! E is out.

In choice D, we're told restaurants can maintain separate dining areas where smoking is permitted. Interesting. If that's the case, then perhaps the objection to the government's plan is not ill founded -- people might no longer go to these restaurants if they aren't able to smoke in these designated smoking areas. Choice D is the answer.
User avatar
P
ChandlerBong
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 16 Jan 2022
Posts: 251
Own Kudos [?]: 402 [0]
Given Kudos: 1013
Location: India
GPA: 4
WE:Analyst (Computer Software)
Send PM
Forum Quiz Mode
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking [#permalink] New post   19 Sep 2023, 04:28
Hi Experts, KarishmaB and AndrewN,

Although I understood the premise and selected D, the lines between "restriction" and "ban" in the argument are still not clear to me.

Can you please share your 2 cents on this?

Thanks in advance. :)
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: Vorland s government is planning a nationwide ban on smoking [#permalink]
19 Sep 2023, 04:28
 1   2   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6917 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
mysterymanrog
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions