It is currently 22 Nov 2017, 16:52

### 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

Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 960

Kudos [?]: 304 [0], given: 5

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

### Show Tags

02 Oct 2008, 11:34
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED

Kudos [?]: 304 [0], given: 5

 e-GMAT Discount Codes Magoosh Discount Codes Kaplan GMAT Prep Discount Codes
VP
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 1258

Kudos [?]: 541 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

02 Oct 2008, 17:18
But I dnt understand how it is D?whts wrong with E? In the link also nobidy has explained reason for chosing D.

Kudos [?]: 541 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Posts: 110

Kudos [?]: 27 [1], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

03 Oct 2008, 13:41
1
KUDOS
E is wrong. Let’s quickly re-read the passage.

"
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.

And one more time 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!

Ok, to support their position People say the revenues increased in the test provinces. Now if the test province revenues were to increase because of the higher province tax then Bar owners could undermine Peoples evidence. Answer E tells us that it is not the case i.e. we can’t take this route to fight Peoples argument.

Thus E does not fly here.

Kudos [?]: 27 [1], given: 0

VP
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
Posts: 1031

Kudos [?]: 729 [0], given: 1

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

### Show Tags

04 Oct 2008, 05:37
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

Kudos [?]: 729 [0], given: 1

Manager
Joined: 27 Oct 2011
Posts: 183

Kudos [?]: 215 [0], given: 4

Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GPA: 3.7
WE: Account Management (Consumer Products)
Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Mar 2012, 15:40
OA is D. The source is from Manhattan GMAT
_________________

DETERMINED TO BREAK 700!!!

Kudos [?]: 215 [0], given: 4

Senior Manager
Status: May The Force Be With Me (D-DAY 15 May 2012)
Joined: 06 Jan 2012
Posts: 271

Kudos [?]: 330 [0], given: 16

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Mar 2012, 21:18
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'.

Kudos [?]: 330 [0], given: 16

Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Mar 2012
Posts: 351

Kudos [?]: 206 [0], given: 31

Concentration: Operations, Strategy
Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Mar 2012, 02:25
fell for E nice question
_________________

Practice Practice and practice...!!

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

Kudos [?]: 206 [0], given: 31

Intern
Joined: 06 Jul 2012
Posts: 41

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 36

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

### Show Tags

12 Sep 2012, 13:17
D...

It weakens the evidence given by argument.
_________________

If you think you are lost, you are.

Kudos [?]: 20 [0], given: 36

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Aug 2011
Posts: 388

Kudos [?]: 238 [0], given: 82

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

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2012, 11:45
6
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.

guyz..plz do explain in detail.. m not geting the answer yet..even i read it its OE.
_________________

Bole So Nehal.. Sat Siri Akal.. Waheguru ji help me to get 700+ score !

Kudos [?]: 238 [0], given: 82

Manager
Status: faciendo quod indiget fieri
Joined: 13 Mar 2012
Posts: 83

Kudos [?]: 44 [2], given: 4

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

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2012, 13:07
2
KUDOS
l will try and explain, hope it helps you.

We have to find a statement that supports the people protesting against the ban of alcohol in prohibitionland as they say they will lose moNey if the ban is enacted.

Now we are given that at places where ban was enacted the sales rose by 50 percent and where it was not enacted it rose by 30 percent. The mystery is that how come even after the ban there was a rise of 50 percent. This is solved by D that since even after the ban they were allowed to sell drinks in the evening, people were drinking heavily in those hours and thus the dramatic increase in sales.

Now if a complete ban on sales is there then the provinces which had an increase of 30 percent will go to zero thus supporting the ban against prohibition and supporting people that they will lose money.

Hope this helps. ThanKs

Kudos [?]: 44 [2], given: 4

Manager
Joined: 06 May 2012
Posts: 75

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 16

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

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2012, 15:42
I answered incorrectly, but my explanations are below for the correct answer

This is a support question - so we can accept new information from the answers to bridge the gap even if not stated in the argument.

Also another important point need to be considered in this argument is difference between BAN & RESTRICTION

sanjoo 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?

A)In the provinces that restricted alcoholic beverages, there was a short-term negative impact on restaurant visitation in the beginning of last year. - short-term negative impact? does not completely support why proprietors are against the ban
b)The sales tax in Prohibitionland is lower on food and beverages than it is on other consumer goods, such as clothing. - clothing? out of scope
c)The consumption of alcoholic beverages in Prohibitionland has been on a gradual decline the last 20 years. - gradual decline doesn't support why the proprietors are against the ban
d)The restrictions on alcoholic beverages enacted last year allowed for the service of drinks beginning around dinnertime each evening. - Correct - Argument states that RESTRICTIONS increase sales. The RESTRICTION to start drinking around dinnertime will boost sales and that is what proprietors want
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. - Proprietors care about overall tax revenue? They don't

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 16

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Aug 2011
Posts: 388

Kudos [?]: 238 [0], given: 82

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

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2012, 22:14
l will try and explain, hope it helps you.

We have to find a statement that supports the people protesting against the ban of alcohol in prohibitionland as they say they will lose moNey if the ban is enacted.

Now we are given that at places where ban was enacted the sales rose by 50 percent and where it was not enacted it rose by 30 percent. The mystery is that how come even after the ban there was a rise of 50 percent. This is solved by D that since even after the ban they were allowed to sell drinks in the evening, people were drinking heavily in those hours and thus the dramatic increase in sales.

Now if a complete ban on sales is there then the provinces which had an increase of 30 percent will go to zero thus supporting the ban against prohibition and supporting people that they will lose money.

Hope this helps. ThanKs

Thanks for ur reply nice explanation.. but .....
Proprietors of restaurants in Prohibitionland are protesting the ban on the grounds that it will reduce their revenues and profits.

Is this line convey that this will be the complete ban?? .. If stimulus saying that 50% increase in sales, Bt choice D saying "The restrictions on alcoholic beverages enacted last year allowed for the service of drinks beginning around dinnertime each evening".. Then this choice is weakend the propertier's argument..because Proprieter are again the ban .. bt this ban still allow the allow for service of dinks around dinner time, and this dinner time service will increase there sales 50%..
_________________

Bole So Nehal.. Sat Siri Akal.. Waheguru ji help me to get 700+ score !

Kudos [?]: 238 [0], given: 82

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Aug 2011
Posts: 388

Kudos [?]: 238 [0], given: 82

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

### Show Tags

26 Sep 2012, 22:16
sanjoo wrote:
l will try and explain, hope it helps you.

We have to find a statement that supports the people protesting against the ban of alcohol in prohibitionland as they say they will lose moNey if the ban is enacted.

Now we are given that at places where ban was enacted the sales rose by 50 percent and where it was not enacted it rose by 30 percent. The mystery is that how come even after the ban there was a rise of 50 percent. This is solved by D that since even after the ban they were allowed to sell drinks in the evening, people were drinking heavily in those hours and thus the dramatic increase in sales.

Now if a complete ban on sales is there then the provinces which had an increase of 30 percent will go to zero thus supporting the ban against prohibition and supporting people that they will lose money.

Hope this helps. ThanKs

Thanks for ur reply nice explanation.. but .....

Proprietors of restaurants in Prohibitionland are protesting the ban on the grounds that it will reduce their revenues and profits.

Is this line convey that this will be the complete ban?? .. If stimulus saying that 50% increase in sales, Bt choice D saying "The restrictions on alcoholic beverages enacted last year allowed for the service of drinks beginning around dinnertime each evening".. Then this choice is weakend the propertier's argument..because Proprieter are against the ban .. bt this ban still allow the allow for service of dinks around dinner time, and this dinner time service will increase there sales by 50%..

Thank u if any one can explain it.
_________________

Bole So Nehal.. Sat Siri Akal.. Waheguru ji help me to get 700+ score !

Kudos [?]: 238 [0], given: 82

Intern
Joined: 06 Mar 2012
Posts: 34

Kudos [?]: 83 [0], given: 12

Location: India
GPA: 3.4
Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Sep 2012, 09:06

Sanjoo,

"The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the service of alcoholic beverages" - shows it will be a complete ban.

Proprietors protest on grounds that the ban will reduce their revenues and profits. Even if there are certain restrictions - like serve alcohol beginning dinner time, this cannot guarantee no reduction in revenues or profits. If the restaurants were serving alcohol whole day due to which their revenues are pretty high, This restriction will be a better option to chose than a complete ban. Restriction, however, will still lead to losses (lesser).

how could a sales tax increase by 50% if this restriction was enforced - The reason may be - that earlier those restaurants were not serving alcohol, after restriction they started serving. Anyways whatever the reason be - the sales tax increase by 50% in restricted areas and 30% in non-restricted areas could be because of some other reason.

Given an option, i would chose D but This question looks flawed and unconvincing.

Press +1 Kudos if you like my reply

Kudos [?]: 83 [0], given: 12

Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 08 May 2012
Posts: 51

Kudos [?]: 384 [7], given: 4

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 770 Q50 V47
Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Sep 2012, 23:29
7
KUDOS
Expert's post
vmdce129907 wrote:

Sanjoo,

"The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the service of alcoholic beverages" - shows it will be a complete ban.

Proprietors protest on grounds that the ban will reduce their revenues and profits. Even if there are certain restrictions - like serve alcohol beginning dinner time, this cannot guarantee no reduction in revenues or profits. If the restaurants were serving alcohol whole day due to which their revenues are pretty high, This restriction will be a better option to chose than a complete ban. Restriction, however, will still lead to losses (lesser).

how could a sales tax increase by 50% if this restriction was enforced - The reason may be - that earlier those restaurants were not serving alcohol, after restriction they started serving. Anyways whatever the reason be - the sales tax increase by 50% in restricted areas and 30% in non-restricted areas could be because of some other reason.

Given an option, i would chose D but This question looks flawed and unconvincing.

Press +1 Kudos if you like my reply

vmdce129907 wrote:

Sanjoo,

"The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the service of alcoholic beverages" - shows it will be a complete ban.

Proprietors protest on grounds that the ban will reduce their revenues and profits. Even if there are certain restrictions - like serve alcohol beginning dinner time, this cannot guarantee no reduction in revenues or profits. If the restaurants were serving alcohol whole day due to which their revenues are pretty high, This restriction will be a better option to chose than a complete ban. Restriction, however, will still lead to losses (lesser).

how could a sales tax increase by 50% if this restriction was enforced - The reason may be - that earlier those restaurants were not serving alcohol, after restriction they started serving. Anyways whatever the reason be - the sales tax increase by 50% in restricted areas and 30% in non-restricted areas could be because of some other reason.

Given an option, i would chose D but This question looks flawed and unconvincing.

Press +1 Kudos if you like my reply

Great conversation already on this one, but I'll chime in since this problem is actually from a Manhattan GMAT practice CAT.

It's a pretty convoluted passage, so let me first simplify:

Proprietors: We don't want a ban, since that will reduce our revenues.
Counterpoint: Some counties have restrictions, and taxes paid by restaurants in those counties rose more quickly than they did in other counties.

Our goal is to support the proprietors' argument. To do so, we need to explain the increase in tax revenues in "restriction" counties. The only way to do this is to exploit the distinction between "restriction" and "ban". Remember, you're not allowed to bring in outside knowledge, but you are allowed to know the definition of the words used! A restriction is less, well, restrictive than a full ban.

Only (D) exploits this issue in the counterpoint. Sure, a restriction might not damage the proprietors' revenue, but if (D) is true then it's still possible that a full ban might negatively affect those revenues.

A couple major takeaways:

1. Pay attention to the exact wording of the argument.
2. Watch out for arguments that try to generalize from the specific (a restriction on alcohol) to the more general (a full ban).
_________________

Mark Sullivan | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | Seattle, WA

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile

Kudos [?]: 384 [7], given: 4

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Aug 2011
Posts: 388

Kudos [?]: 238 [0], given: 82

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

### Show Tags

30 Sep 2012, 12:26
MarkSullivan wrote:
vmdce129907 wrote:

Sanjoo,

"The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the service of alcoholic beverages" - shows it will be a complete ban.

Proprietors protest on grounds that the ban will reduce their revenues and profits. Even if there are certain restrictions - like serve alcohol beginning dinner time, this cannot guarantee no reduction in revenues or profits. If the restaurants were serving alcohol whole day due to which their revenues are pretty high, This restriction will be a better option to chose than a complete ban. Restriction, however, will still lead to losses (lesser).

how could a sales tax increase by 50% if this restriction was enforced - The reason may be - that earlier those restaurants were not serving alcohol, after restriction they started serving. Anyways whatever the reason be - the sales tax increase by 50% in restricted areas and 30% in non-restricted areas could be because of some other reason.

Given an option, i would chose D but This question looks flawed and unconvincing.

Press +1 Kudos if you like my reply

vmdce129907 wrote:

Sanjoo,

"The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the service of alcoholic beverages" - shows it will be a complete ban.

Proprietors protest on grounds that the ban will reduce their revenues and profits. Even if there are certain restrictions - like serve alcohol beginning dinner time, this cannot guarantee no reduction in revenues or profits. If the restaurants were serving alcohol whole day due to which their revenues are pretty high, This restriction will be a better option to chose than a complete ban. Restriction, however, will still lead to losses (lesser).

how could a sales tax increase by 50% if this restriction was enforced - The reason may be - that earlier those restaurants were not serving alcohol, after restriction they started serving. Anyways whatever the reason be - the sales tax increase by 50% in restricted areas and 30% in non-restricted areas could be because of some other reason.

Given an option, i would chose D but This question looks flawed and unconvincing.

Press +1 Kudos if you like my reply

Great conversation already on this one, but I'll chime in since this problem is actually from a Manhattan GMAT practice CAT.

It's a pretty convoluted passage, so let me first simplify:

Proprietors: We don't want a ban, since that will reduce our revenues.
Counterpoint: Some counties have restrictions, and taxes paid by restaurants in those counties rose more quickly than they did in other counties.

Our goal is to support the proprietors' argument. To do so, we need to explain the increase in tax revenues in "restriction" counties. The only way to do this is to exploit the distinction between "restriction" and "ban". Remember, you're not allowed to bring in outside knowledge, but you are allowed to know the definition of the words used! A restriction is less, well, restrictive than a full ban.

Only (D) exploits this issue in the counterpoint. Sure, a restriction might not damage the proprietors' revenue, but if (D) is true then it's still possible that a full ban might negatively affect those revenues.

A couple major takeaways:

1. Pay attention to the exact wording of the argument.
2. Watch out for arguments that try to generalize from the specific (a restriction on alcohol) to the more general (a full ban).

i got that u r trying to say.. banning and resticting makes the differnce in stimulus..

Yup.. now i got that..

in choice D he wants to say that restrictions were allowed diner time drinking bt banning may decrease revenue..!! thats the point here

thank u..!
_________________

Bole So Nehal.. Sat Siri Akal.. Waheguru ji help me to get 700+ score !

Kudos [?]: 238 [0], given: 82

VP
Status: Been a long time guys...
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1378

Kudos [?]: 1704 [0], given: 62

Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Nov 2012, 23:26
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
_________________

Kudos [?]: 1704 [0], given: 62

Manager
Joined: 13 Feb 2012
Posts: 144

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 85

Location: Italy
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 560 Q36 V34
GPA: 3.1
WE: Sales (Transportation)
Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jan 2013, 11:08
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

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 85

Manager
Joined: 28 Aug 2012
Posts: 52

Kudos [?]: 167 [0], given: 105

Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 510 Q36 V25
GPA: 4
WE: Information Technology (Other)
Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Feb 2013, 11:50
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

Kudos [?]: 167 [0], given: 105

Manager
Joined: 07 Feb 2011
Posts: 105

Kudos [?]: 64 [0], given: 45

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

### Show Tags

09 Mar 2013, 12:08
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!
_________________

Kudos [?]: 64 [0], given: 45

Re: The people of Prohibitionland are considering banning the   [#permalink] 09 Mar 2013, 12:08

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4    Next  [ 65 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by