GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 22 Oct 2018, 20:51

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Ten years ago, the Salisbury City Council passed the Culinary Bill, ne

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 16 Aug 2013
Posts: 50
Concentration: Finance, Real Estate
GPA: 3.73
WE: Analyst (Consulting)
Ten years ago, the Salisbury City Council passed the Culinary Bill, ne  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Jun 2015, 12:58
2
10
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  45% (medium)

Question Stats:

66% (01:50) correct 34% (02:03) wrong based on 615 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Ten years ago, the Salisbury City Council passed the Culinary Bill, new legislation to protect the interests of local non-franchise restaurants. Of the 120 local non-franchise restaurants in Salisbury today, 85 opened during the last ten years. Clearly the Culinary Bill has caused a surge in the number of local non-franchise restaurants operating in Salisbury over the past ten years.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A) The Culinary Bill provides no benefit to restaurants that are members of national franchise chains

B) Most of the consumers in Salisbury who patronize these local restaurants are aware of the provisions of the Culinary Bill and approve of them.

C) All economic indicators suggest that household incomes in Salisbury have risen substantially over the past ten years.

D) Of the local non-franchise restaurants in Salisbury ten years ago, fewer than 85 have closed.

E) Similar legislation in similar sized cities across the country has, in most cases, led to an increase in the number of local non-franchise restaurants.

Please give kudos if you like the question
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 02 Dec 2014
Posts: 385
Location: Russian Federation
Concentration: General Management, Economics
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V33
WE: Sales (Telecommunications)
Re: Ten years ago, the Salisbury City Council passed the Culinary Bill, ne  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Apr 2016, 12:04
tia2112 wrote:
Ten years ago, the Salisbury City Council passed the Culinary Bill, new legislation to protect the interests of local non-franchise restaurants. Of the 120 local non-franchise restaurants in Salisbury today, 85 opened during the last ten years. Clearly the Culinary Bill has caused a surge in the number of local non-franchise restaurants operating in Salisbury over the past ten years.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A) The Culinary Bill provides no benefit to restaurants that are members of national franchise chains

B) Most of the consumers in Salisbury who patronize these local restaurants are aware of the provisions of the Culinary Bill and approve of them.

C) All economic indicators suggest that household incomes in Salisbury have risen substantially over the past ten years.

D) Of the local non-franchise restaurants in Salisbury ten years ago, fewer than 85 have closed.

E) Similar legislation in similar sized cities across the country has, in most cases, led to an increase in the number of local non-franchise restaurants.

Please give kudos if you like the question

A) Members of national franchise chains are out of scope.
B) Consumers are out of scope, we talk about owners
C) Household incomes? So what?
D) Correct! If more that 85 restaurants have closed there is no surge in the number of local non-franchise restaurants. For example, imagine that all 85 restaurants have closed after first year. All restaurants should operate.
E) Similar legislation in similar cities are out of scope.
_________________

"Are you gangsters?" - "No we are Russians!"

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 15 Oct 2015
Posts: 323
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GPA: 3.93
WE: Account Management (Education)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Ten years ago, the Salisbury City Council passed the Culinary Bill, ne  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Apr 2016, 03:24
HKD1710 here we go.
Here is a truncation of your DA theory in.
Here the answer is not negative. (it could be rephrased to be)
Here The trap is that if you had taken the rule as supreme then you'd chose a wrong answer.
In fact the only negated option is a most sought after wrong answer.
Sweet one from magoosh.

Dear Mr Dubey, pls chime in while I tally.

Posted from my mobile device
Moderator
avatar
V
Joined: 22 Jun 2014
Posts: 1029
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GMAT 1: 540 Q45 V20
GPA: 2.49
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Ten years ago, the Salisbury City Council passed the Culinary Bill, ne  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Apr 2016, 08:21
1
Quote:
Ten years ago, the Salisbury City Council passed the Culinary Bill, new legislation to protect the interests of local non-franchise restaurants. Of the 120 local non-franchise restaurants in Salisbury today, 85 opened during the last ten years. Clearly the Culinary Bill has caused a surge in the number of local non-franchise restaurants operating in Salisbury over the past ten years.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A) The Culinary Bill provides no benefit to restaurants that are members of national franchise chains

B) Most of the consumers in Salisbury who patronize these local restaurants are aware of the provisions of the Culinary Bill and approve of them.

C) All economic indicators suggest that household incomes in Salisbury have risen substantially over the past ten years.

D) Of the local non-franchise restaurants in Salisbury ten years ago, fewer than 85 have closed.

E) Similar legislation in similar sized cities across the country has, in most cases, led to an increase in the number of local non-franchise restaurants.


Nez wrote:
HKD1710 here we go.
Here is a truncation of your DA theory in.
Here the answer is not negative. (it could be rephrased to be)
Here The trap is that if you had taken the rule as supreme then you'd chose a wrong answer.
In fact the only negated option is a most sought after wrong answer.
Sweet one from magoosh.

Dear Mr Dubey, pls chime in while I tally.

Posted from my mobile device


Hey Nez,

I am Happy to help my friend (saying Mike's style) :P

Analysis:

Question type : Defender Assumption Question

Argument:

Background information : Ten years ago, the Salisbury City Council passed the Culinary Bill, new legislation to protect the interests of local non-franchise restaurants.

Premise: Of the 120 local non-franchise restaurants in Salisbury today, 85 opened during the last ten years.

Conclusion: Clearly the Culinary Bill has caused a surge in the number of local non-franchise restaurants operating in Salisbury over the past ten years

Strategy to solve this question:

1) start evaluating the choices which have a negative word in them.

2) Correct choice should defend the conclusion from breaking apart by possible attack.

3) Keywords : 10 Years time, Number of non-franchise restaurants. the correct choice should relate to these keywords either directly or logically.

For example if profit is the keyword from argument then correct choice would talk about either profit (directly) OR Revenue (logically).

4) Negation test - only when you are not too sure OR when you have time or you are able to do negation test very fast.

After scanning the choices only (A) is one that has a negative keyword. so pick it and then go with other choices one by one.

A) The Culinary Bill provides no benefit to restaurants that are members of national franchise chains - Wrong
Here NO is the negative word. But this choice is just not in the scope of the argument. Benifit and national franchise chains are not key component of the argument and not even discussed at all.

B) Most of the consumers in Salisbury who patronize these local restaurants are aware of the provisions of the Culinary Bill and approve of them. - Wrong
Again Awarenesss of customers are not the concern in the argument. Interest of local non-frenchise is important.

C) All economic indicators suggest that household incomes in Salisbury have risen substantially over the past ten years.
A rise in the household income may help customer to go to the restaurants quite often but who knows if they go to non-frainchise restaurants only.

D) Of the local non-franchise restaurants in Salisbury ten years ago, fewer than 85 have closed. - Right
You (council official) opened 85 and boast hey because of that bill 85 OPENED. wow great! BUT someone comes and tell hey dont be that happy there were 90 restaurants that CLOSED. So this is one possible situation in which conclusion would fall apart. And this is nothing but the negation of your assumption.
This is why to DEFEND you have to show this guy the right picture. Just speak the phrase from this choice and shut him up.

E) Similar legislation in similar sized cities across the country has, in most cases, led to an increase in the number of local non-franchise restaurants. - Wrong
this is the standard wrong choice. what works for other cities may not work for Salisbury. why? well! the chains might not be too interested to open restaurants in that city because of less profit or any othe factors (there are plenty).

Here is a Note that i wrote to help you understand that it is good to be positive about NEGATIVE word in a choice for a DA question but not DEPEND completely on it:

Quote:
Your finding is correct. What you have noticed is correct. The fact that "Choices having NEGATIVE words are likely to be correct" is true ONLY for DAs. WHY? Because whenever you as a author would try to defend you would SAY "NO" i.e. use some negative word in the ATTACK statement of critique.


So Mr Nez, You can mistake on reading part of the theory once but if you commit the same mistake again and again it will take the toll. :P Go through all that i wrote on last question where you learnt all this and then let me know if there is still some part that is not true or applicable.

Bring more questions like this on My friend :) :)
_________________

---------------------------------------------------------------
Target - 720-740
http://gmatclub.com/forum/information-on-new-gmat-esr-report-beta-221111.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/list-of-one-year-full-time-mba-programs-222103.html

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 15 Oct 2015
Posts: 323
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GPA: 3.93
WE: Account Management (Education)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Ten years ago, the Salisbury City Council passed the Culinary Bill, ne  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Apr 2016, 09:37
HKD1710 wrote:
Quote:
Ten years ago, the Salisbury City Council passed the Culinary Bill, new legislation to protect the interests of local non-franchise restaurants. Of the 120 local non-franchise restaurants in Salisbury today, 85 opened during the last ten years. Clearly the Culinary Bill has caused a surge in the number of local non-franchise restaurants operating in Salisbury over the past ten years.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A) The Culinary Bill provides no benefit to restaurants that are members of national franchise chains

B) Most of the consumers in Salisbury who patronize these local restaurants are aware of the provisions of the Culinary Bill and approve of them.

C) All economic indicators suggest that household incomes in Salisbury have risen substantially over the past ten years.

D) Of the local non-franchise restaurants in Salisbury ten years ago, fewer than 85 have closed.

E) Similar legislation in similar sized cities across the country has, in most cases, led to an increase in the number of local non-franchise restaurants.


Nez wrote:
HKD1710 here we go.
Here is a truncation of your DA theory in.
Here the answer is not negative. (it could be rephrased to be)
Here The trap is that if you had taken the rule as supreme then you'd chose a wrong answer.
In fact the only negated option is a most sought after wrong answer.
Sweet one from magoosh.

Dear Mr Dubey, pls chime in while I tally.

Posted from my mobile device


Hey Nez,

I am Happy to help my friend (saying Mike's style) :P

Analysis:

Question type : Defender Assumption Question

Argument:

Background information : Ten years ago, the Salisbury City Council passed the Culinary Bill, new legislation to protect the interests of local non-franchise restaurants.

Premise: Of the 120 local non-franchise restaurants in Salisbury today, 85 opened during the last ten years.

Conclusion: Clearly the Culinary Bill has caused a surge in the number of local non-franchise restaurants operating in Salisbury over the past ten years

Strategy to solve this question:

1) start evaluating the choices which have a negative word in them.

2) Correct choice should defend the conclusion from breaking apart by possible attack.

3) Keywords : 10 Years time, Number of non-franchise restaurants. the correct choice should relate to these keywords either directly or logically.

For example if profit is the keyword from argument then correct choice would talk about either profit (directly) OR Revenue (logically).

4) Negation test - only when you are not too sure OR when you have time or you are able to do negation test very fast.

After scanning the choices only (A) is one that has a negative keyword. so pick it and then go with other choices one by one.

A) The Culinary Bill provides no benefit to restaurants that are members of national franchise chains - Wrong
Here NO is the negative word. But this choice is just not in the scope of the argument. Benifit and national franchise chains are not key component of the argument and not even discussed at all.

B) Most of the consumers in Salisbury who patronize these local restaurants are aware of the provisions of the Culinary Bill and approve of them. - Wrong
Again Awarenesss of customers are not the concern in the argument. Interest of local non-frenchise is important.

C) All economic indicators suggest that household incomes in Salisbury have risen substantially over the past ten years.
A rise in the household income may help customer to go to the restaurants quite often but who knows if they go to non-frainchise restaurants only.

D) Of the local non-franchise restaurants in Salisbury ten years ago, fewer than 85 have closed. - Right
You (council official) opened 85 and boast hey because of that bill 85 OPENED. wow great! BUT someone comes and tell hey dont be that happy there were 90 restaurants that CLOSED. So this is one possible situation in which conclusion would fall apart. And this is nothing but the negation of your assumption.
This is why to DEFEND you have to show this guy the right picture. Just speak the phrase from this choice and shut him up.

E) Similar legislation in similar sized cities across the country has, in most cases, led to an increase in the number of local non-franchise restaurants. - Wrong
this is the standard wrong choice. what works for other cities may not work for Salisbury. why? well! the chains might not be too interested to open restaurants in that city because of less profit or any othe factors (there are plenty).

Here is a Note that i wrote to help you understand that it is good to be positive about NEGATIVE word in a choice for a DA question but not DEPEND completely on it:

Quote:
Your finding is correct. What you have noticed is correct. The fact that "Choices having NEGATIVE words are likely to be correct" is true ONLY for DAs. WHY? Because whenever you as a author would try to defend you would SAY "NO" i.e. use some negative word in the ATTACK statement of critique.


So Mr Nez, You can mistake on reading part of the theory once but if you commit the same mistake again and again it will take the toll. :P Go through all that i wrote on last question where you learnt all this and then let me know if there is still some part that is not true or applicable.

Bring more questions like this on My friend :) :)


Good one.
If the DA theory wasn't sensible, believe me I wouldnt be this particular with it.
I like the idea though it's not full proof
Moderator
avatar
V
Joined: 22 Jun 2014
Posts: 1029
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Technology
GMAT 1: 540 Q45 V20
GPA: 2.49
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Ten years ago, the Salisbury City Council passed the Culinary Bill, ne  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Apr 2016, 09:52
1
Quote:

Good one.
If the DA theory wasn't sensible, believe me I wouldnt be this particular with it.
I like the idea though it's not full proof


Nez,

I am able to apply it in all questions because i keep the complete theory in mind. It's just the application of principles. when we apply some theory we keep IFs and BUTs in mind along with the limitation of one part over another from the same theory.

Hope it helps you to improve. Ping me anytime you when you see you are not able to apply it to a GMAT question.
_________________

---------------------------------------------------------------
Target - 720-740
http://gmatclub.com/forum/information-on-new-gmat-esr-report-beta-221111.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/list-of-one-year-full-time-mba-programs-222103.html

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 15 Oct 2015
Posts: 323
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GPA: 3.93
WE: Account Management (Education)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Ten years ago, the Salisbury City Council passed the Culinary Bill, ne  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Apr 2016, 11:05
HKD1710 wrote:
Quote:

Good one.
If the DA theory wasn't sensible, believe me I wouldnt be this particular with it.
I like the idea though it's not full proof


Nez,

I am able to apply it in all questions because i keep the complete theory in mind. It's just the application of principles. when we apply some theory we keep IFs and BUTs in mind along with the limitation of one part over another from the same theory.

Hope it helps you to improve. Ping me anytime you when you see you are not able to apply it to a GMAT question.


I've got Mr Dubey. look at me.
**hugs**
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 09 Sep 2013
Posts: 84
Schools: HKU MBA"19 (A)
Re: Ten years ago, the Salisbury City Council passed the Culinary Bill, ne  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 May 2016, 07:38
Friends, Romans and countrymen. I can just do this question by process of elimination and not get into understanding the approach.
Which i used to do and got beaten when i gave the GMAT. So I am giving another attempt at GMAT.
Enough about me

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A) The Culinary Bill provides no benefit to restaurants that are members of national franchise chains
This is about national franchise,but we do not are not bothered. As I say DKDC- "Don't Know Don't Care"

B) Most of the consumers in Salisbury who patronize these local restaurants are aware of the provisions of the Culinary Bill and approve of them.
Most approve of them. Even if they did not i Don't Care.The provisions will come into Action. DKDC

C) All economic indicators suggest that household incomes in Salisbury have risen substantially over the past ten years.
Household income increase will i eat outside.No I save my pennies i may or may not.

D) Of the local non-franchise restaurants in Salisbury ten years ago, fewer than 85 have closed.

E) Similar legislation in similar sized cities across the country has, in most cases, led to an increase in the number of local non-franchise restaurants.
So what do i do about E. IT is other country. DKDC. I am bothered about where i live. which is here.

So D is the answer. But not a good approach.

HKD1710 has given a good explanation. Follow his soln not mine
SVP
SVP
avatar
P
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1709
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Ten years ago, the Salisbury City Council passed the Culinary Bill, ne  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Nov 2017, 11:51
this is an important pattern in gmat, test takers should learn this.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 03 Feb 2017
Posts: 7
Re: Ten years ago, the Salisbury City Council passed the Culinary Bill, ne  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Nov 2017, 07:59
HKD1710 wrote:
Quote:
Ten years ago, the Salisbury City Council passed the Culinary Bill, new legislation to protect the interests of local non-franchise restaurants. Of the 120 local non-franchise restaurants in Salisbury today, 85 opened during the last ten years. Clearly the Culinary Bill has caused a surge in the number of local non-franchise restaurants operating in Salisbury over the past ten years.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A) The Culinary Bill provides no benefit to restaurants that are members of national franchise chains

B) Most of the consumers in Salisbury who patronize these local restaurants are aware of the provisions of the Culinary Bill and approve of them.

C) All economic indicators suggest that household incomes in Salisbury have risen substantially over the past ten years.

D) Of the local non-franchise restaurants in Salisbury ten years ago, fewer than 85 have closed.

E) Similar legislation in similar sized cities across the country has, in most cases, led to an increase in the number of local non-franchise restaurants.


Nez wrote:
HKD1710 here we go.
Here is a truncation of your DA theory in.
Here the answer is not negative. (it could be rephrased to be)
Here The trap is that if you had taken the rule as supreme then you'd chose a wrong answer.
In fact the only negated option is a most sought after wrong answer.
Sweet one from magoosh.

Dear Mr Dubey, pls chime in while I tally.

Posted from my mobile device


Hey Nez,

I am Happy to help my friend (saying Mike's style) :P

Analysis:

Question type : Defender Assumption Question

Argument:

Background information : Ten years ago, the Salisbury City Council passed the Culinary Bill, new legislation to protect the interests of local non-franchise restaurants.

Premise: Of the 120 local non-franchise restaurants in Salisbury today, 85 opened during the last ten years.

Conclusion: Clearly the Culinary Bill has caused a surge in the number of local non-franchise restaurants operating in Salisbury over the past ten years

Strategy to solve this question:

1) start evaluating the choices which have a negative word in them.

2) Correct choice should defend the conclusion from breaking apart by possible attack.

3) Keywords : 10 Years time, Number of non-franchise restaurants. the correct choice should relate to these keywords either directly or logically.

For example if profit is the keyword from argument then correct choice would talk about either profit (directly) OR Revenue (logically).

4) Negation test - only when you are not too sure OR when you have time or you are able to do negation test very fast.

After scanning the choices only (A) is one that has a negative keyword. so pick it and then go with other choices one by one.

A) The Culinary Bill provides no benefit to restaurants that are members of national franchise chains - Wrong
Here NO is the negative word. But this choice is just not in the scope of the argument. Benifit and national franchise chains are not key component of the argument and not even discussed at all.

B) Most of the consumers in Salisbury who patronize these local restaurants are aware of the provisions of the Culinary Bill and approve of them. - Wrong
Again Awarenesss of customers are not the concern in the argument. Interest of local non-frenchise is important.

C) All economic indicators suggest that household incomes in Salisbury have risen substantially over the past ten years.
A rise in the household income may help customer to go to the restaurants quite often but who knows if they go to non-frainchise restaurants only.

D) Of the local non-franchise restaurants in Salisbury ten years ago, fewer than 85 have closed. - Right
You (council official) opened 85 and boast hey because of that bill 85 OPENED. wow great! BUT someone comes and tell hey dont be that happy there were 90 restaurants that CLOSED. So this is one possible situation in which conclusion would fall apart. And this is nothing but the negation of your assumption.
This is why to DEFEND you have to show this guy the right picture. Just speak the phrase from this choice and shut him up.

E) Similar legislation in similar sized cities across the country has, in most cases, led to an increase in the number of local non-franchise restaurants. - Wrong
this is the standard wrong choice. what works for other cities may not work for Salisbury. why? well! the chains might not be too interested to open restaurants in that city because of less profit or any othe factors (there are plenty).

Here is a Note that i wrote to help you understand that it is good to be positive about NEGATIVE word in a choice for a DA question but not DEPEND completely on it:

Quote:
Your finding is correct. What you have noticed is correct. The fact that "Choices having NEGATIVE words are likely to be correct" is true ONLY for DAs. WHY? Because whenever you as a author would try to defend you would SAY "NO" i.e. use some negative word in the ATTACK statement of critique.


So Mr Nez, You can mistake on reading part of the theory once but if you commit the same mistake again and again it will take the toll. :P Go through all that i wrote on last question where you learnt all this and then let me know if there is still some part that is not true or applicable.

Bring more questions like this on My friend :) :)



Even if fewer than 85 have closed, say 84. This will actually weaken the argument right?
SVP
SVP
avatar
P
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1709
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Ten years ago, the Salisbury City Council passed the Culinary Bill, ne  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Nov 2017, 15:16
ashikshetty wrote:
HKD1710 wrote:
Quote:
Ten years ago, the Salisbury City Council passed the Culinary Bill, new legislation to protect the interests of local non-franchise restaurants. Of the 120 local non-franchise restaurants in Salisbury today, 85 opened during the last ten years. Clearly the Culinary Bill has caused a surge in the number of local non-franchise restaurants operating in Salisbury over the past ten years.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A) The Culinary Bill provides no benefit to restaurants that are members of national franchise chains

B) Most of the consumers in Salisbury who patronize these local restaurants are aware of the provisions of the Culinary Bill and approve of them.

C) All economic indicators suggest that household incomes in Salisbury have risen substantially over the past ten years.

D) Of the local non-franchise restaurants in Salisbury ten years ago, fewer than 85 have closed.

E) Similar legislation in similar sized cities across the country has, in most cases, led to an increase in the number of local non-franchise restaurants.


Nez wrote:
HKD1710 here we go.
Here is a truncation of your DA theory in.
Here the answer is not negative. (it could be rephrased to be)
Here The trap is that if you had taken the rule as supreme then you'd chose a wrong answer.
In fact the only negated option is a most sought after wrong answer.
Sweet one from magoosh.

Dear Mr Dubey, pls chime in while I tally.

Posted from my mobile device


Hey Nez,

I am Happy to help my friend (saying Mike's style) :P

Analysis:

Question type : Defender Assumption Question

Argument:

Background information : Ten years ago, the Salisbury City Council passed the Culinary Bill, new legislation to protect the interests of local non-franchise restaurants.

Premise: Of the 120 local non-franchise restaurants in Salisbury today, 85 opened during the last ten years.

Conclusion: Clearly the Culinary Bill has caused a surge in the number of local non-franchise restaurants operating in Salisbury over the past ten years

Strategy to solve this question:

1) start evaluating the choices which have a negative word in them.

2) Correct choice should defend the conclusion from breaking apart by possible attack.

3) Keywords : 10 Years time, Number of non-franchise restaurants. the correct choice should relate to these keywords either directly or logically.

For example if profit is the keyword from argument then correct choice would talk about either profit (directly) OR Revenue (logically).

4) Negation test - only when you are not too sure OR when you have time or you are able to do negation test very fast.

After scanning the choices only (A) is one that has a negative keyword. so pick it and then go with other choices one by one.

A) The Culinary Bill provides no benefit to restaurants that are members of national franchise chains - Wrong
Here NO is the negative word. But this choice is just not in the scope of the argument. Benifit and national franchise chains are not key component of the argument and not even discussed at all.

B) Most of the consumers in Salisbury who patronize these local restaurants are aware of the provisions of the Culinary Bill and approve of them. - Wrong
Again Awarenesss of customers are not the concern in the argument. Interest of local non-frenchise is important.

C) All economic indicators suggest that household incomes in Salisbury have risen substantially over the past ten years.
A rise in the household income may help customer to go to the restaurants quite often but who knows if they go to non-frainchise restaurants only.

D) Of the local non-franchise restaurants in Salisbury ten years ago, fewer than 85 have closed. - Right
You (council official) opened 85 and boast hey because of that bill 85 OPENED. wow great! BUT someone comes and tell hey dont be that happy there were 90 restaurants that CLOSED. So this is one possible situation in which conclusion would fall apart. And this is nothing but the negation of your assumption.
This is why to DEFEND you have to show this guy the right picture. Just speak the phrase from this choice and shut him up.

E) Similar legislation in similar sized cities across the country has, in most cases, led to an increase in the number of local non-franchise restaurants. - Wrong
this is the standard wrong choice. what works for other cities may not work for Salisbury. why? well! the chains might not be too interested to open restaurants in that city because of less profit or any othe factors (there are plenty).

Here is a Note that i wrote to help you understand that it is good to be positive about NEGATIVE word in a choice for a DA question but not DEPEND completely on it:

Quote:
Your finding is correct. What you have noticed is correct. The fact that "Choices having NEGATIVE words are likely to be correct" is true ONLY for DAs. WHY? Because whenever you as a author would try to defend you would SAY "NO" i.e. use some negative word in the ATTACK statement of critique.


So Mr Nez, You can mistake on reading part of the theory once but if you commit the same mistake again and again it will take the toll. :P Go through all that i wrote on last question where you learnt all this and then let me know if there is still some part that is not true or applicable.

Bring more questions like this on My friend :) :)



Even if fewer than 85 have closed, say 84. This will actually weaken the argument right?


No, D is an assumption for the conclusion of the argument b/c the bill does help the opening of new franchise restaurants. Also, such pattern in D regularly appears in gmat prep and the official exam. Test takers should know this.
SC Moderator
User avatar
V
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 1222
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Ten years ago, the Salisbury City Council passed the Culinary Bill, ne  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Jul 2018, 18:30

Official Explanation


For an assumption, we can use the Negation Test. The credited answer is (D). Let's consider the opposite of (D)—suppose more than 85 local non-franchise restaurants closed in Salisbury over the last ten years. Well, we know from the prompt that 85 new one opened, so if more closed than opened, then we couldn't say that there was a surge in their numbers over the past ten years. Negating (D) destroys the argument, which indicates that (D) is an assumption of the argument.

The entire argument is about local non-franchise restaurants, so national franchise restaurants are not directly relevant. If the Culinary Bill benefits local non-franchise restaurants and provide no benefit to national franchise restaurants, that vaguely suggest the former will prosper, but not necessarily. This doesn't have clear, unambiguous implication for the argument. Choice (A) is incorrect.

Protecting the interests of restaurants may well have to do with tax breaks, incentive programs, insurance rules, etc.—all things of which a typical restaurant patron might be totally uninformed. When the patrons know about these provisions is irrelevant. Choice (B) is incorrect.

Choice (C) is suggestive at best. If household income rises, does that mean that folks will eat at local non-franchise restaurants in Salisbury, as opposed to national franchise restaurants or local non-franchise restaurants in a neighboring town? We don't know, so we can't draw a definitive link. Choice (C) is incorrect.

The fact that similar legislation has worked elsewhere is suggestive, but it doesn't necessarily mean it would work the same way in Salisbury. From the prompt, we have no way to determine whether Salisbury would follow a national pattern or be an exception. Choice (E) is incorrect.
_________________

Thanks!
Do give some kudos.

Simple strategy:
“Once you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

Want to improve your Score:
GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 1| GMAT Ninja YouTube! Series 2

My Notes:
Reading comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Absolute Phrases

GMAT Club Bot
Re: Ten years ago, the Salisbury City Council passed the Culinary Bill, ne &nbs [#permalink] 17 Jul 2018, 18:30
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Ten years ago, the Salisbury City Council passed the Culinary Bill, ne

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


Copyright

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

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

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®.