The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) - Page 2
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 25 Feb 2017, 14:22

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 658
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 116 [0], given: 7

### Show Tags

02 Oct 2008, 06:42
IMO D.

E is something that is against the given primises that tax increase 30% vs 50% where there was a Ban.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 994
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 200 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

02 Oct 2008, 10:34
VP
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 1286
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 423 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Oct 2008, 16:18
But I dnt understand how it is D?whts wrong with E? In the link also nobidy has explained reason for chosing D.
VP
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
Posts: 1043
Followers: 14

Kudos [?]: 577 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

04 Oct 2008, 04:37
explanation from Manhattan GMAT CAT

The argument concerns the economic impact on restaurants in Prohibitionland if the service of alcoholic beverages is banned. It presents evidence that, despite restrictions on the service of alcohol in certain areas of Prohibitionland, sales taxes in restaurants in those areas rose at a higher rate than for those in other parts of Prohibitionland, suggesting that the ban would not have any adverse economic impact. We are asked to support the restaurant proprietors' claim , so the correct answer choice will call the relevance of the seemingly contradictory evidence into question.

(A). This answer choice may seem to strengthen the argument that banning the service of alcoholic beverages would have an adverse impact on restaurants. However, as the evidence involves data for the entire year, citing a short-term negative impact on restaurant visitation at the beginning of the year does not measurably strengthen the argument.

(B) The relative tax rate on food and beverages as compared to other consumer good is irrelevant here.

(C) A gradual decline in alcohol consumption over the past 20 years would suggest that over time, any ban on alcohol would have an increasingly small impact on restaurant visitation, weakening the proprietors’ argument.

(D) CORRECT. This statement calls the evidence into question by indicating that any measured increase in sales taxes and, presumably, revenues for restaurants that have been operating under the restrictions last year enacted is irrelevant, as the restrictions could be argued to be completely different than the total ban that is being proposed. This answer choice substantially strengthens the proprietors’ argument by threatening to make the cited evidence irrelevant.

(E) The fact that overall sales tax revenue did not increase at a higher rate in the provinces that enacted the restrictions on alcoholic beverages weakens the proprietors’ argument, as it makes the cited evidence more compelling by ruling out the possibility of different growth rates in the different areas.
_________________

"You have to find it. No one else can find it for you." - Bjorn Borg

Manager
Joined: 27 Oct 2011
Posts: 191
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT 1: Q V
GPA: 3.7
WE: Account Management (Consumer Products)
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 153 [0], given: 4

Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Mar 2012, 14:40
OA is D. The source is from Manhattan GMAT
_________________

DETERMINED TO BREAK 700!!!

Senior Manager
Status: May The Force Be With Me (D-DAY 15 May 2012)
Joined: 06 Jan 2012
Posts: 289
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 264 [0], given: 16

Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Mar 2012, 20:18
IMAO D.

E is talking about sales taxes that is collected by the government & does not directly affect the sales of alcohol or revenues of the restaurant owners
_________________

Giving +1 kudos is a better way of saying 'Thank You'.

Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Mar 2012
Posts: 369
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 169 [0], given: 31

Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Mar 2012, 01:25
fell for E nice question
_________________

Practice Practice and practice...!!

If there's a loophole in my analysis--> suggest measures to make it airtight.

Intern
Joined: 06 Jul 2012
Posts: 43
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 16 [0], given: 36

Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Sep 2012, 12:17
D...

It weakens the evidence given by argument.
_________________

If you think you are lost, you are.

VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1420
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Followers: 177

Kudos [?]: 1366 [0], given: 62

Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Nov 2012, 22:26
Wow a great question. Must say a Toughie
+1 D.
Reason:
D states that the restrictions on alchohlic beverages enacted last year allowed for the service of drinks beginning around dinnertime each evening.
First of all, ban did hurt the revenues and profits in that after the ban on alchoholic drinks,the restaurants were ONLY allowed to sell drinks each evening at dinnertime. Naturally, the sales will dip because they are selling drink only at evening and that too at dinnertime, when people are more concerned for their dinner.
I have given emphasis on "only", because ban was imposed on the sale of alchoholic drinks but were allowed to be sold at evenings. If they were allowed to be sold at other time also, then whats the use of that "ban".
E is incorrect because even though the provinces where the ban was not enacted, the sales tax revenue rose. how? E states that "Overall sales tax revenue did not increase at a substantially higher rate in the provinces that enacted the restrictions on alchoholic beverages than in the rest of Prohibitionland last year". It compares the rate of increase of sales tax revenue. Hence it implies that sales tax revenue inceased in the provinces where the ban was enacted.
Hope that helps.
-s
_________________
Manager
Joined: 13 Feb 2012
Posts: 147
Location: Italy
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 560 Q36 V34
GPA: 3.1
WE: Sales (Transportation)
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 85

Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jan 2013, 10:08
Yep, it's D; if it's allowed in the evening hours is not banned, just restricted, so the argument falls.
_________________

"The Burnout" - My Debrief

Kudos if I helped you

Andy

Manager
Joined: 28 Aug 2012
Posts: 52
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 510 Q36 V25
GPA: 4
WE: Information Technology (Other)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 128 [0], given: 105

Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Feb 2013, 10:50
IMO D
The argument concerns the economic impact on restaurants in Prohibitionland if
the service of alcoholic beverages is banned. It presents evidence that, despite
restrictions on the service of alcohol in certain areas of Prohibitionland, sales
taxes in restaurants in those areas rose at a higher rate than for those in other
parts of Prohibitionland, suggesting that the ban would not have any adverse
economic impact. We are asked to support the restaurant proprietors' claim , so
the correct answer choice will call the relevance of the seemingly contradictory
evidence into question.
(A). This answer choice may seem to strengthen the argument that banning the
service of alcoholic beverages would have an adverse impact on restaurants.
However, as the evidence involves data for the entire year, citing a short-term
negative impact on restaurant visitation at the beginning of the year does not
measurably strengthen the argument.
(B) The relative tax rate on food and beverages as compared to other consumer
good is irrelevant here.
(C) A gradual decline in alcohol consumption over the past 20 years would
suggest that over time, any ban on alcohol would have an increasingly small
impact on restaurant visitation, weakening the proprietors’ argument.
(D) CORRECT. This statement calls the evidence into question by indicating that
any measured increase in sales taxes and, presumably, revenues for restaurants
that have been operating under the restrictions last year enacted is irrelevant, as
the restrictions could be argued to be completely different than the total ban that
is being proposed. This answer choice substantially strengthens the proprietors’
argument by threatening to make the cited evidence irrelevant.
(E) The fact that overall sales tax revenue did not increase at a higher rate in the
provinces that enacted the restrictions on alcoholic beverages weakens the
proprietors’ argument, as it makes the cited evidence more compelling by ruling
out the possibility of different growth rates in the different areas.

OA : D
Hope this helps
Manager
Joined: 07 Feb 2011
Posts: 98
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 59 [0], given: 45

### Show Tags

09 Mar 2013, 11:08
jatinrai wrote:
snaps wrote:
Quote:
The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the service of alcoholic beverages in restaurants to curb unruly behavior on the part of its residents. Proprietors of restaurants in Prohibitionland are protesting the ban on the grounds that it will reduce their revenues and profits. However, several provinces in Prohibitionland enacted restrictions on alcoholic beverages last year, and the sales taxes paid by the restaurants in those provinces rose by an average of 50 percent. In contrast, the sales taxes paid by restaurants located in areas of Prohibitionland that did not have any restrictions rose by an average of 30 percent.

Which of the following, if true, supports the restaurant proprietors' economic stance against the ban?

A. In the provinces that restricted alcoholic beverages, there was a short-term negative impact on restaurant visitation in the beginning of last year.

B. The sales tax in Prohibitionland is lower on food and beverages than it is on other consumer goods, such as clothing.

C. The consumption of alcoholic beverages in Prohibitionland has been on a gradual decline the last 20 years.

D. The restrictions on alcoholic beverages enacted last year allowed for the service of drinks beginning around dinnertime each evening.

E. Overall sales tax revenue did not increase at a substantially higher rate in the provinces that enacted the restrictions on alcoholic beverages than in the rest of Prohibitionland last year.

Extracting info from the passage:

-----
People: lets ban alcohol in bars
Bar owners: No, will reduce our revenues!
People use example to support their claim: restrictions were implemented in some provinces -> revenues up!

Support bar owners claim.
----

How to support owners? Fight the evidence (the People’s example) used!

Couple things I note while reading the passage:
1. People propose a “ban” but use "restrictions" in their example. Do the terms mean the same thing?
2. Even with restrictions bar’s revenues increased!

The only question in my mind by now is does “restrictions”=”full restrictions” i.e. ban?

Because if restrictions are “full” (i.e. no alcohol is sold) but revenues increased than Bar Owners have nothing to worry about should ok the ban and expect revenue growth. However, if restrictions are *partial* (say only 2 hours/day alcohol sale is permitted) then the evidence People use to support their claim (2 hrs/day alcohol sales but revenues show increase) will definitely show that alcohol sales make \$ and by implementing the ban this dollar stream will be gone!

Now, D tells us that alcohol was sold couple hours per day i.e. the restrictions do not equal to ban!

You've raised the sales tax by 50% in provinces where there is ban & still the revenues from the tax have not risen. This clearly implies that your sales have fallen. This is what the owners had been cribbing about.

Man you are still discussing even after 1 year!!! When do you plan to post the OA.

OA is D. This was a great approach but I don't think it will 'definitely' show anything. I think if anything it undermines the premise of the argument for a ban because it shows the two bans are DIFFERENT. No reason to think pas this.

Is that good logic? Back me up!
_________________

Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2013
Posts: 62
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 11

Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Mar 2013, 01:36
Yes I have verified the above, and the correct answer should be D and not anything else.

Exactly the correct answer should be D. and not anything else.

Option A:- Does not affect the argument.Also, in extreme it weakens the propreitors' stance as when the restaurant visitation was low it had a increase of 50% in profits, then with normal visitation it would increase even further.

Option B:- Abslolutely does not affect the argument.

Option C:- Weakens the restaurant propreitor's claim as not the restrictions but something else decreased the profits and revenues.

Option E:- Does not affect the argument at all as nowhere the argument says that the profits or the revenues should increase at a substantial rate. Even a slight increase in profits can weaken the argument.

Option D:- Strengthens the argument.

Also, The premise is about X: RESTRICTING the sale of alcoholic beverages in several provinces did not hurt restaurants.
The conclusion is about Y: BANNING the sale of alcoholic beverages in Prohibitionland will not hurt restaurants.
BANNING ≠ RESTRICTING. Restricting does not mean a complete ban or completely banning the alcoholic beverages.

The proprietors disagree with the conclusion here.
To support the proprietors' position, the correct answer must show why BANNING the sale of alcohol would have a more negative impact than simply RESTRICTING the sale of alcohol.

D: The restrictions on alcoholic beverages enacted last year allowed for the service of drinks beginning around dinnertime each evening.
Thus, the RESTRICTIONS did not hurt sales because the restaurants were still able to sell alcohol all evening, when alcohol is typically purchased.
Thus, the proprietors' claim that BANNING the sale of alcohol would reduce revenues and profits is strengthened.

Hope this helps.

Thanks.
_________________

'The best way to thank or appreciate efforts on this forum is to give Kudos.'

Intern
Joined: 29 Mar 2013
Posts: 3
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 2

Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Mar 2013, 11:14
Its a clear D

As per 'E' -- we have problems in each of the 2 possible cases

E. Overall sales tax revenue did not increase at a substantially higher rate in the provinces that enacted the restrictions on alcoholic beverages than in the rest of Prohibitionland last year.

1) Overall sales tax -- If this means sales tax of all the products -- in this case this option does not have any impact on the argument.
2) Overall sales tax -- if this means sales tax from only alcohol -- in this case we can't actually compare 2 provinces. This is because --
provinces that enacted restrictions may have less number of restaurants/outlets that sell alcohol and provinces that have not enacted restrictions may have more restaurants/outlets that sell alcohol.
This is a classic mix-up of numbers and percentages.
So the answer can't be E in each of the cases above.
Intern
Status: RusTinPeace
Joined: 11 Aug 2012
Posts: 36
WE: Sales (Commercial Banking)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 43

Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jun 2013, 12:46
somehow i don't find D convincing, could somebody tell me a solid reason for D ?

Edited found the explainations in later posts. Thanks
Manager
Joined: 14 Nov 2008
Posts: 70
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 1

Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Sep 2013, 10:07
The argument concerns the economic impact on restaurants in Prohibitionland if
the service of alcoholic beverages is banned. It presents evidence that, despite
restrictions on the service of alcohol in certain areas of Prohibitionland, sales
taxes in restaurants in those areas rose at a higher rate than for those in other
parts of Prohibitionland, suggesting that the ban would not have any adverse
economic impact. We are asked to support the restaurant proprietors' claim , so
the correct answer choice will call the relevance of the seemingly contradictory
evidence into question.
(A). This answer choice may seem to strengthen the argument that banning the
service of alcoholic beverages would have an adverse impact on restaurants.
However, as the evidence involves data for the entire year, citing a short-term
negative impact on restaurant visitation at the beginning of the year does not
measurably strengthen the argument.
(B) The relative tax rate on food and beverages as compared to other consumer
good is irrelevant here.
(C) A gradual decline in alcohol consumption over the past 20 years would
suggest that over time, any ban on alcohol would have an increasingly small
impact on restaurant visitation, weakening the proprietors’ argument.
(D) CORRECT. This statement calls the evidence into question by indicating that
any measured increase in sales taxes and, presumably, revenues for restaurants
that have been operating under the restrictions last year enacted is irrelevant, as
the restrictions could be argued to be completely different than the total ban that
is being proposed. This answer choice substantially strengthens the proprietors’
argument by threatening to make the cited evidence irrelevant.
(E) The fact that overall sales tax revenue did not increase at a higher rate in the
provinces that enacted the restrictions on alcoholic beverages weakens the
proprietors’ argument, as it makes the cited evidence more compelling by ruling
out the possibility of different growth rates in the different areas.
Manager
Joined: 24 Oct 2013
Posts: 181
Schools: LBS '18
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
WE: Design (Transportation)
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 83

Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Apr 2014, 15:28
D kinda weakens it. Because restaurants selling alcohol all day have 30% increase and restaurants selling alcohol only around dinnertime have 50% increase. So this weakens the proprietor's support.
Senior Manager
Joined: 03 May 2013
Posts: 356
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Human Resources
Schools: ISB '16, IIMA (M)
GPA: 4
WE: Human Resources (Human Resources)
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 122 [0], given: 70

Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Apr 2014, 01:56
applecrisp wrote:
The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the service of alcoholic beverages in restaurants to curb unruly behavior on the part of its residents. Proprietors of restaurants in Prohibitionland are protesting the ban on the grounds that it will reduce their revenues and profits. However, several provinces in Prohibitionland enacted restrictions on alcoholic beverages last year, and the sales taxes paid by the restaurants in those provinces rose by an average of 50 percent. In contrast, the sales taxes paid by restaurants located in areas of Prohibitionland that did not have any restrictions rose by an average of 30 percent.

Which of the following, if true, supports the restaurant proprietors’ economic stance against the ban?

In the provinces that restricted alcoholic beverages, there was a short-term negative impact on restaurant visitation in the beginning of last year.

The sales tax in Prohibitionland is lower on food and beverages than it is on other consumer goods, such as clothing.

The consumption of alcoholic beverages in Prohibitionland has been on a gradual decline the last 20 years.

The restrictions on alcoholic beverages enacted last year allowed for the service of drinks beginning around dinnertime each evening.

Overall sales tax revenue did not increase at a substantially higher rate in the provinces that enacted the restrictions on alcoholic beverages than in the rest of Prohibitionland last year.

CONTENDERS ARE ''D" AND ''E''.
D- IT SHOWS THAT ACTUALLY THERE WAS NO RESTRICTION ON LIQUOR AND HENCE THE ENHANCED REVENUE GENERATION WAS POSSIBLY DUE TO IT ie 50%

E- WE ARE CONCERNED WITH SALES TAX EFFECT ON RESTAURENTS NOT OVER ALL SALES TAX REVENUE

ANS = "D".....

Manager
Joined: 24 Oct 2013
Posts: 181
Schools: LBS '18
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
WE: Design (Transportation)
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 83

Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Apr 2014, 04:31
semwal wrote:
applecrisp wrote:
The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the service of alcoholic beverages in restaurants to curb unruly behavior on the part of its residents. Proprietors of restaurants in Prohibitionland are protesting the ban on the grounds that it will reduce their revenues and profits. However, several provinces in Prohibitionland enacted restrictions on alcoholic beverages last year, and the sales taxes paid by the restaurants in those provinces rose by an average of 50 percent. In contrast, the sales taxes paid by restaurants located in areas of Prohibitionland that did not have any restrictions rose by an average of 30 percent.

Which of the following, if true, supports the restaurant proprietors’ economic stance against the ban?

In the provinces that restricted alcoholic beverages, there was a short-term negative impact on restaurant visitation in the beginning of last year.

The sales tax in Prohibitionland is lower on food and beverages than it is on other consumer goods, such as clothing.

The consumption of alcoholic beverages in Prohibitionland has been on a gradual decline the last 20 years.

The restrictions on alcoholic beverages enacted last year allowed for the service of drinks beginning around dinnertime each evening.

Overall sales tax revenue did not increase at a substantially higher rate in the provinces that enacted the restrictions on alcoholic beverages than in the rest of Prohibitionland last year.

CONTENDERS ARE ''D" AND ''E''.
D- IT SHOWS THAT ACTUALLY THERE WAS NO RESTRICTION ON LIQUOR AND HENCE THE ENHANCED REVENUE GENERATION WAS POSSIBLY DUE TO IT ie 50%

E- WE ARE CONCERNED WITH SALES TAX EFFECT ON RESTAURENTS NOT OVER ALL SALES TAX REVENUE

ANS = "D".....

D kinda weakens it. Because restaurants selling alcohol all day have 30% increase and restaurants selling alcohol only around dinnertime have 50% increase. So this weakens the proprietor's support.
Current Student
Status: Everyone is a leader. Just stop listening to others.
Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 991
Location: India
GPA: 3.51
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 166

Kudos [?]: 1502 [0], given: 227

Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Apr 2014, 04:46
IMO A.
Proprietors claim that their revenue will decrease and only option A is talking about decrease in customers visit even if it is short term but it goes along with proprietors claim. For increase in sales tax underlying cause could be anything, option D does not prove anything.
_________________

Piyush K
-----------------------
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is to try just one more time. ― Thomas A. Edison
Don't forget to press--> Kudos
My Articles: 1. WOULD: when to use? | 2. All GMATPrep RCs (New)
Tip: Before exam a week earlier don't forget to exhaust all gmatprep problems specially for "sentence correction".

Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the   [#permalink] 23 Apr 2014, 04:46

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 47 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
6 Our legislature is considering passing legislation to ban skateboardin 3 19 Mar 2016, 08:01
5 CR Revision: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning 4 29 Jan 2016, 09:04
10 The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the 10 26 Sep 2012, 10:45
2 The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the 7 28 Jun 2010, 09:22
The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the 7 16 Nov 2009, 12:20
Display posts from previous: Sort by